You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: automated spam detection

  • To: (Piet Beertema)
  • From: Rudi van Houten < >
  • Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:57:20 +0100 (MET)
  • Cc:
  • Reply-to:

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.

  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>