nanog mailing list archives
Re: vendor spam OTD
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:52:10 -0400
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:39:12PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
As more and more "legitimate" companies exploit email as a free resource I think we're going to need to broaden the definition of spam.
Absolutely not. The canonical -- and only correct -- definition is UBE, as Suresh pointed out. It has served us well for decades and it continues to do so. HOWEVER -- there are other forms of abuse carried by SMTP and we have names for some of those. If it turns out that yet one more form of abuse is becoming a problem and thus we need a term to refer to it, we can and should come up with one. It's also worth noting that some instances of abuse can be described by more than one term. Abusers, unfortunately, can be quite creative and prolific. ---rsk
Current thread:
- vendor spam OTD Rob Seastrom (Apr 27)
- Re: vendor spam OTD Stephen Satchell (Apr 27)
- Re: vendor spam OTD Rob Seastrom (Apr 27)
- Re: vendor spam OTD Suresh Ramasubramanian (Apr 27)
- Re: vendor spam OTD Rob Seastrom (Apr 27)
- Re: vendor spam OTD Stephen Satchell (Apr 27)
- Re: vendor spam OTD Suresh Ramasubramanian (Apr 27)
- Re: vendor spam OTD Barry Shein (Apr 28)
- Re: vendor spam OTD Rich Kulawiec (Apr 28)
- Re: vendor spam OTD Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 28)
- Re: vendor spam OTD Rob Seastrom (Apr 27)
- Re: vendor spam OTD Stephen Satchell (Apr 27)