Re: networksorcery.com spam
dee3 clearly 99.9% of spam is worse than the networksorcery stuff. I dee3 suggest that stopping the worst of the spam should be higher dee3 priority. dcrocker an excellent goal. how can we objectively differentiate the dcrocker one from the other? Fleming Simply moving away from the IPv4 Sewer works wonders. Wrapping aluminum foil around one's head and moving into a packing crate does cut down on the number of telemarketers bothering you, but it doesn't really solve the problem. It just indicates strongly that you're nuts. Next... -- Paul
Re: networksorcery.com spam
At 10:07 AM 7/22/2001, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote: clearly 99.9% of spam is worse than the networksorcery stuff. I suggest that stopping the worst of the spam should be higher priority. an excellent goal. how can we objectively differentiate the one from the other? d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
Re: networksorcery.com spam
- Original Message - From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 5:04 PM Subject: Re: networksorcery.com spam At 10:07 AM 7/22/2001, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote: clearly 99.9% of spam is worse than the networksorcery stuff. I suggest that stopping the worst of the spam should be higher priority. an excellent goal. how can we objectively differentiate the one from the other? Simply moving away from the IPv4 Sewer works wonders. The toy IPv4 Internet is a sewer. IPv8 is designed to be a swamp to cover the sewer. IPv16 is the high-ground ...here are some links... http://www.dot-arizona.com/IPv8/ Jim Fleming http://www.unir.com Mars 128n 128e http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html
Re: networksorcery.com spam
I'm with Marshall here. Much as it would be nice if everything was black and white (or one and zero), that's not the way the real world of human communications is. The edge of the sharpest, straightest razor blabe looks like a mountain range under a microscope. I can understand why someone would think of this mail as spam, although I didn't, but clearly 99.9% of spam is worse than the networksorcery stuff. I suggest that stopping the worst of the spam should be higher priority. Donald From: Marshall T. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: 011b01c1116a$388720f0$8753cf3f@FATORA To: Gary E. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marshall Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:20:38 -0700 Yo mtr! I believe that this mail list is opt-in and the bulk mail in question was opt-out. If you can not see the difference then we have big problems. I spend a lot of time as postmaster for a lot of domains digging out from under spam. It is NOT a mole hill to me or a lot of other folks on this list. Opt-out just does not scale in an internet world. hi. we're not talking about a mail list so the issue of opt-in/out is meaningless. all we have is this: a guy authors an rfc and gets an e-mail by someone maintaining a public database of rfc authors. there is only one thing that calling this spam achieves -- it reduces the impact of the term spam. when a word means all things, it means nothing. let's keep the powder dry for real spam, shall we? /mtr
Re: networksorcery.com spam
- Original Message - From: Bob Braden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 4:12 PM Subject: Re: networksorcery.com spam * * Now if I could just automagically create the content... hmmm * * -MM * * Creating the content is easy. Keeping it current is not. Bob Braden If you use the Internet it is easy. The Internet is no longer one-dimensional ASCII files. Many people have made it to 2 dimensions (the web) and some people have migrated to 3 dimensions. Some people choose to never change, and eventually they die. Jim Fleming Why gamble with a .BIZ Lottery? Start a real .BIZ Today ! http://www.DOT-BIZ.com http://www.BIZ.Registry 0:212 - BIZ World
Re: networksorcery.com spam
At 07:20 PM 7/20/2001, Marshall T. Rose wrote: hi. we're not talking about a mail list so the issue of opt-in/out is meaningless. the fact that addressees are derived incrementally, rather than causing a mass mailing strikes me as a minor point. The mass aspects of spam are irritating, but not what causes the bulk of public concern. Spam is most typically defined as unsolicited commercial email. By that definition, the mailing in question qualifies. And it is entirely opt-out based, since the recipient has no choice about receiving the initial mailing. there is only one thing that calling this spam achieves -- it reduces the impact of the term spam. when a word means all things, it means nothing. for all that, I agree we need to be very careful about definitions and usage. In fact, one might wish to have codification? d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
Re: networksorcery.com spam
From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... the fact that addressees are derived incrementally, rather than causing a mass mailing strikes me as a minor point. The mass aspects of spam are irritating, but not what causes the bulk of public concern. Spam is most typically defined as unsolicited commercial email. I think most people who have thought about the issue define spam as unsolicited bulk mail. See for example RFC 2635. The problem with defining spam as unsolicited commerical mail is agreeing what is or is not commercial is hopeless. By that definition, the mailing in question qualifies. I agree, but I bet the sender and others would say it was not commercial. I think it is reasonable to see it as non-commercial. It is a classic example of the pitfalls in defining spam by content, the avowed or assumed intent of the sender, or the offense (not) taken by some receivers instead of external behavior. And it is entirely opt-out based, since the recipient has no choice about receiving the initial mailing. there is only one thing that calling this spam achieves -- it reduces the impact of the term spam. when a word means all things, it means nothing. for all that, I agree we need to be very careful about definitions and usage. In fact, one might wish to have codification? The definition of spam has been thoroughly thrashed out elsewhere over the course of the last several years. I'm surprised to see that so many people here are evidently unfamiliar with the many megabytes of that thrashing. To summarize the trashing, if you define spam as mail that - offends all of its targets, then almost nothing will be spam except some mail that is quite private. - offends some of its targets, than almost all bulk mail will be spam. - that was sent with avowed good intentions or that supposedly benefits the recipient more than the sender, then almost nothing will be spam. - is commercial, then a lot of clearly non-commercial but offensive mail won't be spam (e.g. mail that aims to save your soul), and a lot of other mail will be endlessly controversial as the sender says it's not commercial and some targets say it is. - is promotional, then you have the same problems as with commercial, although the controversies will include religious spam, spam intended to increase web page hit counts, and so forth. (A year or two ago, many people advocated promotional. That movement fizzled under controversies about whether individual mass mailings were promotional.) - violates terms of service of the sender's ISPs as determined by the ISP, then you'll find that a lot of what you think is spam isn't, as demonstrated over the last couple years by a large ISP or two. The only definition that works is unsolicited bulk mail. An individual target cannot always know for certain that a message is bulk, but in practice your guess is almost always right. Someone at an ISP can detect bulk-ness from logs or from complaints. Individuals can also use checksum clearinghouses to detect bulk-ness. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: networksorcery.com spam
Under the current description that I have seen, this email is in fact SPAM because you are not expecting it. Oh! Shoot! so I receive LOTS of SPAM daily! Saludos. Regards.. _ José Manuel Arronte García Supervisor de Soporte Técnico Helpdesk Meg@Red Veracruz Telecomunicaciones y Entretenimiento SA Av. S. Díaz Mirón 2625-A Fracc. Moderno Veracruz Ver. MÉXICO
Re: networksorcery.com spam
[ full disclosure: network sorcery did a fair amount of contract work for me a few months back to help develop the rfc bibliography in xml (http://xml.resource.org/). that project is separate from the rfc author stuff maintained by network sourcery. ] vern - as much as i appreciate the modern dictum that everyone is a villain, i don't think it would kill you every now and then to look for a benign explanation to things. if the guys want to send an email to the author of an rfc and ask for updated contact information to go into a publically-available repository, i think that's a service, not a threat. if the message gets sent by a script instead of someone of cutting-and-pasting from emacs, i think that's automation, not 1984. in fact, i'll go out on a limb and say that i'd certainly be happy if the rfc editor had the resources to maintain such a database. /mtr - Original Message - From: Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 11:02 Subject: Re: networksorcery.com spam From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Conner) Hi folks, I guess it is time to come out of the shadows. As many of you know, Network Sorcery maintains a mirror site with the RFCs. Three years ago we started maintaining home pages for RFC authors so we could collect a listing of contact info, publications they have written and whatever bio info they want to reveal. The contact info gets stale over time. Yes it is true, we actually try to contact authors using the contact info in their latest RFC. It is also true that I send out a form letter requesting the info. Why would I want to compose the same letter over and over again? If we wanted to spam the largest number of authors this would be the group to send it to. I have tried to be descrete but I guess someone took offence at actually trying to contact him. It would certainly make my life easier if the IETF would provide a directory that the authors could update themselves. I have volunteered in the past to share this info with the IETF. ... From Mr. Conner's private statements to me, it is evident that he does not understand, or more likely, chooses to misunderstand the notion of bulk mail. Contrary to his statements, when you send a message that is substantially identical to a bunch of people, it is bulk, no matter why you do it. This applies equally to Mr. Conner's enterprise as to the reflector for this mailing list. Judging from the following command in my private stash: grep -i '[-a-z0-9_]@[a-z0-9_]' rfc*.txt | tr -s ' ' '\12' \ | grep -i '[-a-z0-9_]@[a-z0-9_]' | sort -u | wc -l there are more than 11,000 addresses among the RFC's. I assume that Mr. Conner has targeted his messages to only the addresses listed in Authors sections, but whether he sends to the full 11,000 or only to authors, he is sending bulk mail. Note that bulk mail is *substantially identical. If Mr. Conner had replaced his Greetings with Dear Mr. Schryver and added a url pointing at my listing among his web pages, his message would still have been bulk, although I probably would not have recognized it as such. (Note that the anti-spam mechanism I'm flogging, the DCC or Distributed Checksum Clearinghouses, should recognize it as bulk despite those personalizations.) The difference between general bulk mail and spam is that spam is not solicited by its targets. So is Mr. Conner's bulk mail spam? That depends on whether it is solicited by its targets. From his private words to me, it seems that Mr. Conner figures that his messages are desirable because the IETF does not maintain a list of contact addresses for RFC authors. Personally, I think it is no more desirable to involve a third party in such a project than for publishing the RFC's themselves. However, that bears on whether Mr. Conner's messages are generally useful more than on whether they are solicited by their targets. As others have said, putting your address in an RFC can be seen as soliciting questions and comments. I'm not sure I agree or disagree, but regardless, those messages would not be bulk and so could not be spam. What decides the issue for me is comparing Mr. Conner's messages with the familiar messages from the Who's Who spammers. The only differences I can see between the two are: - Mr. Conner targets his bulk messages to fewer people. Instead of scraping InterNIC domain contacts or using one of those 30,000,000 address CDROM's, Mr. Conner scrapes RFCs. That may that produce a better class of targets, but it is irrelevant to whether his targets solicit his messages - Mr. Conner does not charge authors for a listing in his Who's Who, but hopes to profit indirectly, such as by having RFC authors recommend his services and by making his database as complete as possible. This is also not a relevant difference. - far more people
Re: networksorcery.com spam
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 03:06:53PM -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote: At 09:48 AM 7/20/2001 -0700, Steve Conner wrote: It would certainly make my life easier if the IETF would provide a directory that the authors could update themselves. I have volunteered in the past to share this info with the IETF. Perhaps this is something to bring up at the Plenary. Most likely in the IAB's RFC Editor report! I'm not sure how many people use it but I've often wanted a database like this for authors where the output was in Marshall's RFC 2629 XML format. Then between the bibliography stuff he has xml.resource.org I could have everything but the content be generated... Now if I could just automagically create the content... hmmm -MM -- Michael Mealling| Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | http://www.neonym.net Democracy gives an aura of legitimacy to acts that would otherwise be deemed tyranny. -- Walter Williams
Re: networksorcery.com spam
From: Marshall T. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... vern - as much as i appreciate the modern dictum that everyone is a villain, i don't think it would kill you every now and then to look for a benign explanation to things. Spam is not about villainy, fraud, or public services. It is only about consent to receive bulk mail and scaling for individual mailboxes. If you don't make the content of spam irrelevant, then you slide down a slope that prevents you from complaining about any spam or enforcing anti-spam terms of service. if you excuse benign unsolicited bulk mail because it serves a public good, such as about rolling blackouts or IIS worms, then when can you ever complain about spam? For every unsolicited bulk message, there is at least one person and usually many who honestly believe that it is in the public interest or the interest of its targets, even if it porn, a chain letter, or one of those fraudulent but not illegal (as far as I know) $25 vanity Who's Who listings. If you allow one person to use unsolicited bulk mail to maintain a registry of people who live in your neighborhood, or write RFC's, then how can you criticize or terminate the accounts of others who are send unsolicited bulk mail for other purposes? The evil in spam is not advertising or crass commercialism, but scaling. If 1% of the ~20,000,000 U.S. companies sent monthly reminders of their existence to 1% of the mailboxes on the net, how many messages would you receive daily? What if those reminders came from all over the world? If every reasonable Who's Who that might want to list you sent you quarterly reminders about your entry, including people named Rose, people with mtview.ca.us addresses, RFC authors, dead tree authors, and people who attended the first InterOp in 1986, how many reminders would you get? In how many different U.S. Census categories do you fit? Many of them could use a registry so that members could find each other or be found by other interested parties. What would you say if many of the many third party RFC repositories started sending you periodic reminders to update your biographical and bibliographical entries? So far it seems that only this single outfit is doing that, and that's part of why I agreed that you might decide you had or would solicit this bulk mail and so say it is not spam. But if you don't draw the on principle, how do you draw it at all? ... in fact, i'll go out on a limb and say that i'd certainly be happy if the rfc editor had the resources to maintain such a database. That's a whole other issue that has nothing to do with this bulk mail. I think you can make a case that submitting an I-D to the RFC Editor includes to a solicitation for related bulk mail from the Editor for at least the life of the I-D. Shepherding an I-D until it gets an RFC number may also amount to a lifetime solicitation of bulk mail from the Editor. Thus, if this stuff were sent on behalf of the RFC Editor maintaining such a database, it would be solicited bulk mail and so not spam. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: networksorcery.com spam
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 02:16:46PM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: From: Marshall T. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] What would you say if many of the many third party RFC repositories started sending you periodic reminders to update your biographical and bibliographical entries? So far it seems that only this single outfit is doing that, and that's part of why I agreed that you might decide you had or would solicit this bulk mail and so say it is not spam. But if you don't draw the on principle, how do you draw it at all? You draw the line based on the fact that you put your contact information in a publication in the first place. If you don't want to be contacted about an RFC you've written then don't put any contact information in it. IMNSHO, the simple act of putting your contact information in there is a solicitation for contact about that document, bulk or otherwise. in fact, i'll go out on a limb and say that i'd certainly be happy if the rfc editor had the resources to maintain such a database. That's a whole other issue that has nothing to do with this bulk mail. I think you can make a case that submitting an I-D to the RFC Editor includes to a solicitation for related bulk mail from the Editor for at least the life of the I-D. Shepherding an I-D until it gets an RFC number may also amount to a lifetime solicitation of bulk mail from the Editor. Thus, if this stuff were sent on behalf of the RFC Editor maintaining such a database, it would be solicited bulk mail and so not spam. Nope. If you don't want to be contacted about the document you wrote/co-wrote then don't put the contact info in there in the first place. What is it there for if not to contact you about that document, regardless of whether or not the contact is automated or not? -MM -- Michael Mealling| Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | http://www.neonym.net Democracy gives an aura of legitimacy to acts that would otherwise be deemed tyranny. -- Walter Williams
Re: networksorcery.com spam
vern - one could just as easily argue that the 2K blather you just dumped into my mailbox is both unsolicited and bulk. talk about the proverbial mountain the mole hill. my advice: get some perspective or get better pharmaceuticals... /mtr - Original Message - From: Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 13:16 Subject: Re: networksorcery.com spam From: Marshall T. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... vern - as much as i appreciate the modern dictum that everyone is a villain, i don't think it would kill you every now and then to look for a benign explanation to things. Spam is not about villainy, fraud, or public services. It is only about consent to receive bulk mail and scaling for individual mailboxes. If you don't make the content of spam irrelevant, then you slide down a slope that prevents you from complaining about any spam or enforcing anti-spam terms of service. if you excuse benign unsolicited bulk mail because it serves a public good, such as about rolling blackouts or IIS worms, then when can you ever complain about spam? For every unsolicited bulk message, there is at least one person and usually many who honestly believe that it is in the public interest or the interest of its targets, even if it porn, a chain letter, or one of those fraudulent but not illegal (as far as I know) $25 vanity Who's Who listings. If you allow one person to use unsolicited bulk mail to maintain a registry of people who live in your neighborhood, or write RFC's, then how can you criticize or terminate the accounts of others who are send unsolicited bulk mail for other purposes? The evil in spam is not advertising or crass commercialism, but scaling. If 1% of the ~20,000,000 U.S. companies sent monthly reminders of their existence to 1% of the mailboxes on the net, how many messages would you receive daily? What if those reminders came from all over the world? If every reasonable Who's Who that might want to list you sent you quarterly reminders about your entry, including people named Rose, people with mtview.ca.us addresses, RFC authors, dead tree authors, and people who attended the first InterOp in 1986, how many reminders would you get? In how many different U.S. Census categories do you fit? Many of them could use a registry so that members could find each other or be found by other interested parties. What would you say if many of the many third party RFC repositories started sending you periodic reminders to update your biographical and bibliographical entries? So far it seems that only this single outfit is doing that, and that's part of why I agreed that you might decide you had or would solicit this bulk mail and so say it is not spam. But if you don't draw the on principle, how do you draw it at all? ... in fact, i'll go out on a limb and say that i'd certainly be happy if the rfc editor had the resources to maintain such a database. That's a whole other issue that has nothing to do with this bulk mail. I think you can make a case that submitting an I-D to the RFC Editor includes to a solicitation for related bulk mail from the Editor for at least the life of the I-D. Shepherding an I-D until it gets an RFC number may also amount to a lifetime solicitation of bulk mail from the Editor. Thus, if this stuff were sent on behalf of the RFC Editor maintaining such a database, it would be solicited bulk mail and so not spam. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: networksorcery.com spam
Yo mtr! I believe that this mail list is opt-in and the bulk mail in question was opt-out. If you can not see the difference then we have big problems. I spend a lot of time as postmaster for a lot of domains digging out from under spam. It is NOT a mole hill to me or a lot of other folks on this list. Opt-out just does not scale in an internet world. RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Marshall T. Rose wrote: vern - one could just as easily argue that the 2K blather you just dumped into my mailbox is both unsolicited and bulk. talk about the proverbial mountain the mole hill.
Re: networksorcery.com spam (fwd)
Yo All! Hahahaha! Here is how Marshall handles HIS mail. He just throws it away! Maybe we can all learn from him? :-) RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 14:43:24 -0700 From: Marshall Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Gary E. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: networksorcery.com spam This is an automated reply from Marshall Rose's personal mailbot. Marshall receives several hundred messages each day, and if he tried to read each one individually, he wouldn't be able to do anything else! Thus he has delegated this herculean task to me. Unfortunately, I'm a mindless automaton, which means that I occasionally behave in a suboptimal fashion. One of my many responsibilities is to try to keep everything except PERSONAL messages out of Marshall's personal mailbox. You have sent a message to his personal mailbox, but my guess -- and I could be wrong -- is that your message is not really intended for Marshall's personal attention. Thus I have moved your message to a lower-priority archive where it probably will NOT be read by him any time soon. If your message is about one of the topics listed below, there is a better address to send it to. Please check this list and see if there is a more appropriate address, and if so, please resend your message accordingly: Topic Please Use This Address Instead -- --- Dover Beach Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] Invisible Worlds[EMAIL PROTECTED] ISODE [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4BSD/ISODE SNMP [EMAIL PROTECTED] MH [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..[EMAIL PROTECTED] POP [EMAIL PROTECTED] Safe-Tcl[EMAIL PROTECTED] SNMP[EMAIL PROTECTED] SNMP+Tcl [EMAIL PROTECTED] .. [EMAIL PROTECTED] SNMP Testing [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Simple Times[EMAIL PROTECTED] TPC.INT [EMAIL PROTECTED] xml2rfc [EMAIL PROTECTED] If your message is not about any of the topics listed above, and needs Marshall's personal attention, please resend your message to Marshall's personal mailbox, with this Subject field: Subject: [DES GULF ALP BIRD PLY SAID] networksorcery.com spam and I will mark the message for his immediate attention. Please accept my apology if you received this message in error. Marshall hasn't figured out yet how to make me quite as smart as he is, so occasionally I bounce messages that I really shouldn't. -- Marshall's personal mailbot Yo mtr! I believe that this mail list is opt-in and the bulk mail in question was opt-out. If you can not see the difference then we have big problems. I spend a lot of time as postmaster for a lot of domains digging out from under spam. It is NOT a mole hill to me or a lot of other folks on this list. Opt-out just does not scale in an internet world. RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Marshall T. Rose wrote: vern - one could just as easily argue that the 2K blather you just dumped into my mailbox is both unsolicited and bulk. talk about the proverbial mountain the mole hill.
Re: networksorcery.com spam
Yo mtr! I believe that this mail list is opt-in and the bulk mail in question was opt-out. If you can not see the difference then we have big problems. I spend a lot of time as postmaster for a lot of domains digging out from under spam. It is NOT a mole hill to me or a lot of other folks on this list. Opt-out just does not scale in an internet world. hi. we're not talking about a mail list so the issue of opt-in/out is meaningless. all we have is this: a guy authors an rfc and gets an e-mail by someone maintaining a public database of rfc authors. there is only one thing that calling this spam achieves -- it reduces the impact of the term spam. when a word means all things, it means nothing. let's keep the powder dry for real spam, shall we? /mtr
Re: networksorcery.com spam
From: Marshall T. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... there is only one thing that calling this spam achieves -- it reduces the impact of the term spam. when a word means all things, it means nothing. let's keep the powder dry for real spam, shall we? What is real spam? How can I tell when I receive it? Should I fire on offers for printing cheap supplies? Since I have a couple of printers, supplies would do me more good than a listing in an RFC directory. What about Internet Stock Surveys? SERIOUS ONLINE INCOME? Free porn NO CREDIT CARD NEEDED? (recent topics in this list) My definition is evidently wrong. It was bulk that I didn't expressly and explicitly ask for, regardless of motive, content, source, or other justification. What is the right definition? Because I don't trust my (or your) ability to judge content, motive, or justification, I'd prefer a definition that is as close to mechanically implementable as possible. My old definition allowed a purely mechanical filter with essentially 0% false positives and low false negatives. Anything bulk because it has been seen by a bunch of other people and not in my white list was rejected. What should I do instead? Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. If I were inclined to complain about non-bulk wastes of bits, I'd mention responding to a message with a complete copy of the original and then sending two copies to some lucky people. P.P.S. Then there were the recent messages from the RFC author Who's Who organization containing both quoted-printable ASCII and HTML.
Re: networksorcery.com spam
*Steps out on proverbial limb* Under the current description that I have seen, this email is in fact SPAM because you are not expecting it. I personally did not receive this message, and have been on the IETF list for awhile, without participating much. Guess you could call me a lurker... Here's my point, I don't know much about this guy, but what has happened according to what I have seen is he is trying to compile a list (perhaps to sell, perhaps to give away free) to the public, and more importantly companies. He has sent out an email to everyone who has published or participated in an RFC, most likely because he wants to ask permision to publish their name to avoid any legal entanglements. IMHO, a SPAM email is the typical 'loose hundreds of pounds now' or 'free live teen girls stripping' type emails. Emails that come out of the blue and honestly have no relevance. The other day I received an offer for free pantyhose, and I'm a 19 year old male. I don't wear pantyhose, and don't intend to start. I guess my point is, from what it sounds like, this guy wasn't intentionally spamming you, he was just trying to ask your permission or give you a heads up on what's going on. Email him regarding the subjexct, but don't bring it out onto the IETF list. worse than anything is the amount of SPAM that gets sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and some other mailing lists I'm on where THE ENTIRE LIST is spammed. I doubt this guy has sent out a REALLY LARGE email message to you with pictures and stuff or attachments. But if this email message is such a problem then why not post it to the list so we can get an idea of how bad it is? *Steps back to the shadows, engages anti-flame device, tables the whole spamming issue* * TRAICOVN --- http://www.traicovn.com * On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Marshall T. Rose wrote: Yo mtr! I believe that this mail list is opt-in and the bulk mail in question was opt-out. If you can not see the difference then we have big problems. I spend a lot of time as postmaster for a lot of domains digging out from under spam. It is NOT a mole hill to me or a lot of other folks on this list. Opt-out just does not scale in an internet world. hi. we're not talking about a mail list so the issue of opt-in/out is meaningless. all we have is this: a guy authors an rfc and gets an e-mail by someone maintaining a public database of rfc authors. there is only one thing that calling this spam achieves -- it reduces the impact of the term spam. when a word means all things, it means nothing. let's keep the powder dry for real spam, shall we? /mtr
RE: networksorcery.com spam
Under the current description that I have seen, this email is in fact SPAM because you are not expecting it. Oh my, have we come a long way. I receive mail that I am not expecting everyday, and I would definitely not qualify all of that as spam. Lighten up! What do you want, a system in which someone has to ask us permission before they can send us mail? In fact, legally, the message from networksorcery does not qualify as spam: the source address is genuine, you can reply to it; the subject line is not misleading. Indeed, it is sent to many people, so it is not quite the same as a letter from an RFC reader asking what the heck I meant in section 3.4 of RFC , but is definitely not the everyday proposal to look at fresh flesh or pyramid investments. Like it or not, at some point spam is a form of free speech. Yes, I know, free speech by spending someone else's money, etc. And it is irritant. But people seem to be quite irrational with spam. They are ready to endorse all kinds of censorship proposal, they are ready to broadbrush as spam any mail they don't like. I would much rather receive some spam than see free speech suppressed, and I definitely want to be able to send or receive unsolicited mail. Some feel that the netsorcery case is borderline spam, but our first reaction to borderline cases should be tolerance! Remember the robustness principle? -- Christian Huitema
networksorcery.com spam
I think that networksorcery.com is sending a bulk message to RFC authors soliciting updates for their version of a Who's Who. When I asked why their message was not unsolicited bulk mail or spam they said that the info request was sent to [me] and only [me]. Golly gee. Let me try to think if I've ever before received an impersonal form letter that does not contain my name or anything that distinguishes me from many other people, but that was supposedly sent to me and only me. Perhaps as part of a one time mailing that won't be repeated unless I respond? Maybe so that I can correct my biographical information in a forthcoming Who's Who? If they had told the truth and admitted that they did the equivalent of grep'ing for addresses in their stock of RFCs, I would have been content and perhaps flatteredwell, maybe not flattered in view of how long many years it's taken them to get around to my wonderful Informationl RFC. Instead, they chose to insult my intelligence. Enclosed is a copy of their message so you can compare it to the absolutely unique copy sent to you and only to you. Perhaps competing with the genuinely authoritative RFC sources (including the IETF's pages) is not generating enough traffic, and they're hoping to tap the egos of RFC authors for word of mouth advertising. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED] Greetings, I am the managing editor of the RFC Sourcebook, a quarterly published periodical that focuses on the Request for Comments series of documents. We are in the process of updating the contact and biographical information in the Author section of our publication. Currently, we provide the contact information from your latest RFC on your page. We would like to provide more accurate information so that interested readers can reach you. Additional information on other books and articles that you have authored and other biographical information you would like to provide to us would be appreciated. You are invited to review your page in the RFC Sourcebook at http://www.networksorcery.com/enp/. Just click Authors on the navigation bar and page down to your entry.
