Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt?
John Payne
john at sackheads.org
Mon Oct 29 17:16:44 UTC 2001
On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 08:46:09AM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 09:26:02PM -0800, John Payne wrote:
> > I am trying to be good :) If you change one word in your definition...
> > you cover the "small potential problem" (which has been seen already)
> > without losing anything.
> >
> > Unsolicited Bulk E-mail.
>
> I'm not sure I like the use of the word bulk. The reason is that
> it is not precise. Is 10 bulk? 50? Is it only bulk if I use a
> "spam tool"?
Bulk is more than 1 copy. How do I know if something is bulk?
A simple test. Is this something that could have been sent to someone
else with either no modification, or a trivial "mailmerge" operation.
It then becomes up to the spammer to prove otherwise to his abuse desk,
who will probably have received multiple complaints anyway.
> Unsolicited, Commercial, and E-mail all have precise definitions.
> particularly if we're going to get something (eventually) into a
> useful law I think we need to make sure it is entirely defined of
> precise terms.
Sure... but focusing on commercial is dangerous.
> You do cite a good example of my "small potential problem". Nothing
> immediately comes to mind as a good way to catch it without causing
> good things to get caught up as well. I'm going to think about it.
My feelings are if its unsolicited and bulk, then it ain't good.
SPAM-L is one mailbox over that way ---->
--
John Payne http://sackheads.org/jpayne/ john at sackheads.org
http://sackheads.org/uce/ Fax: +44 870 0547954
To send me mail, use the address in the From: header
More information about the NANOG
mailing list