Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt?

[John Payne <john () sackheads org>]

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 () sackheads org
http://sackheads.org/uce/                     Fax: +44 870 0547954
        To send me mail, use the address in the From: header