[anti-abuse-wg] definition of abuse

peter h wrote:

Hello Peter,

>> you cannot define spam because of different personal and legal
>> definitions, you can only use it as a more general term,
>> most people simply know what it is.
>
> A disagree.
>
> spam is a well defined thing. It's unsolcitated commercial email.

Sure, but its not a worldwide and lawfull definition.
Its only commonly used like this ...

> What is lacking in many countries is a legal definition and
> sanctions for sending spam.

And thats the point (we already know).
So: you cannot judge anything as spam, simply because
definition and laws differ.

> We ought to be able to fight spam ( as an international problem) even if some
> countries does not have specific laws against it.

Thats surely true.

>> (you can try and defined "live". I will be happy, if you could,
>>    most people cannot and also have different definitions,
>>    but most people also have the same ideas, when they talk
>>    about "live". You can also try and define "red" ...)
>>
>> second, we are talking about abuse here
>> abuse is clearly definable, it happens on the receivers
>> side, its either abusing somebody personally and could
>> have various reasons or legal background, defined by different
>> countries law, organisation rules, whatever ...
>>
>> third, the same email could be abusive in one country or
>> when received by one person or organization or
>> whatever entity and could be ok with others
> You must diffrentiate between acts illegal in some country and spam. It's
> 2 completeley different things.

Just what I sayd.

> Note that even person-to-person messages containg for instance childporn
> is illegal in many countries, but it is not spam.

That why we are not focusing on spam, we are focusing on abuse,
what makes things much easier.

>> fourth, there is NO clear definition of abuse at the receivers
>> side because of those different "feelings" or laws, but this one:
>> ITS ABUSING HIM
>>
>> Therefore the definition of spam is pretty easy:
>> a spam email is an unwanted email that abusing the receiver
>>
> Now you have invented a "kitchen-variant" of definition os spam which most
> people disagrees with. Spam has nothing to do with any receiver
> beeing abused, it's only unsolicited commercial email(s).

But it would be a much better definition ;o)

> Whats really annoying is that spam is delivered with stolen resources ( abusing
> peoples computers and tricking them in delivering their spews). So
> with spam there is two victims. the person who's resources is unknowingly
> abused to send spam , and the recipient that has to pay for receiving spam.

You are downgrade this on abuse again, and forget the word "spam"
completely.
If there are laws in the country of the abused resources, you
can fight it and if if there are laws in the receivers country
you can do the same.

> Good day sir, my name is peter håkanson, which clearly was in my .sig.

Thnx for that.

> Then please unsubscribe. Remember that thisis a opt-in list.

Hm, difficult.
I like the tone of arround 99,9% of the mails coming through and
Im pretty sure, that there is something like a netiquette
for this list (we all maybe agreed to when signing in).

I would prever, that most people do not hide instead
of missing all the valuable other mails.


Kind regards, Frnak
--
MOTD: "have you enabled SSL on a website or mailbox today ?"
--
PHADE Software - PowerWeb                       http://www.powerweb.de
Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast             mailto:frank at powerweb.de
Schinkelstrasse 17                                fon: +49 33200 52920
14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany             fax: +49 33200 52921
======================================================================