Re: automated spam detection

[Rudi van Houten <]

In a message to me Piet Beertema wrote:
> 
>     Think the discussion about recognizing spam should focuss on the
>     definition of spam.  In the end I think it will be concluded that
>     there is no sound definition of spam.
> In this context: unsolicited *and unwanted* commercial e-mail.
That is only a clear definition for the addressee who is
wanting/unwanting. Such a definition can not be used by a
central automated agency.
> 
>     Only way is content-filtering, and that's not an option to me.
> Not only not an option, but [now or later] rightout illegal.
> And from a legal point of view any general form of filtering
> by an ISP - and perhaps even AUP's that forbid UCE - may be
> a violation of the constitutional right of freedom of speech
> and freedom of press. That might well be the reason why the
> EC Directive is a bit "reluctant".

Yes, but is also illegal to pose as someone else when sending
communications, so filtering that checks the sender against
a signature, as is suggested on this list, could be used.

> 
> 
> 	Piet
> 


-- 
Rudi van Houten	  Faculty of Mathematics Utrecht University
Budapestlaan 8  -  3584 CD  -  Utrecht  -  Netherlands
:-) Fantasy is given mankind to make amends for what he is not,
    and a sense of humour as consolation for what he is.