Defining Spam Is Not The Issue

from the the-big-battle dept

For a while now, I've been talking about how every "anti-spam" conference or discussion seems to get bogged down (right at the very beginning) on the question of "how do we define spam?" In my mind, this has always been the wrong question - and it seemed like something of a red herring thrown out by the Direct Marketing Association to delay any anti-spam rules that might slow down their (only slightly more legit) spamming operations. Now, David Berlind has written an interesting article taking a serious look at the question of a spam definition and agrees with the FTC's Orson Swindle who claims that spam is "anything I don't like." In other words, it's the end user (and not the ISPs, marketers, or government) who should be deciding what is and what is not spam. From there, he suggests that any spam solution needs to let the end-user designate what they consider spam to be. The issue isn't what's the single proper definition of spam - but how do we build a system that lets anyone stop getting the email they don't want.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Tim, May 18th, 2005 @ 1:49am

    Strange

    I don't think `anything the user dislikes' is remotely adequately defined to be legislated upon, that's the problem. "Oh no, my neighbour sent me a picture of their hamster, must sue!" ... that's crap.

    If you settle on UBE, then you've got the unsolicited bit sorted, and the `bulk' actually helps define it - it doesn't just have to be one sender emitting many mails, it makes you think about each involved entity's responsibility in the case of joe-job backscatter too: IMO, such spam or viral backscatter bounces are UBE, but the bulkishness is a distributed phenomenon, the responsibility of both the original spammer or virus writer, *and* those idiots who choose to bounce the mail rather than reject it while the SMTP connection is live.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), May 18th, 2005 @ 4:11am

    Re: Strange

    I think you misunderstood. The point he was making was that every user defines spam differently -- so there's really no way to come up with a universal definition of spam that satisfies everyone for legislative purposes... He wasn't suggesting his definition should be used in the law, but noting why any law wouldn't stop spam.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This