[anti-abuse-wg] update on netsecdb project
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] update on netsecdb project
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] update on netsecdb project
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ian Eiloart
iane at sussex.ac.uk
Wed Apr 7 15:09:59 CEST 2010
--On 6 April 2010 21:57:00 +0200 Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 07:26:20PM +0200, furio ercolessi wrote: >> > Sure, once we agree on a definition for spam, that COULD work fine. >> >> Is there a disagreement on this point ? I thought it was >> "unsolicited+bulk" (as in http://www.spamhaus.org/definition.html ) >> and that this definition was quite universally accepted in the industry. > > JFTR, I don't think it has to be "bulk" to be SPAM. OTOH, I see the > "C" in "UCE" as relevant... if someone sends a commercial sales mail > to my private e-mail, and it's just a single and directly targeted > e-mail, it's *still* SPAM. In the UK, the term "marketing" is used in place of commercial. It's wider than commercial. You could be marketing a political party, charity, or church. > > So, you see, there is no universal definition. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ /\ Document Freedom Day - Liberate your documents _\/` http://documentfreedom.org/ - March 31st 2010
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] update on netsecdb project
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] update on netsecdb project
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]