Re: automated spam detection

[Xlink Abuse Task Force <]

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.
> 
>     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".

There is also a constitutional protection of ownership. Any unwanted mail
violates this, in other words it is theft. Sending bulks of unwanted mails
in these terms is a seveire theft since it produces costs of many thousands
Euro.

Banning the sending of unrequested bulk-mailings is banning of theft. Since
there are other possibilities to tell my opinion to a large amount of people
there is no need to allow sending it to ... let's say any e-mail address in 
the ripe-database. There's no need to allow me doing it via a poorly 
administrated mailserver I found yesterday as long as I'm not allowed to 
walk through an open door in a house and take anything with me I like to.

Bertil