Jan Pieter Cornet wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 05:44:28PM +0100, Jørgen Hovland wrote:
From many previous discussions I have a hard time believing that you will ever reach consensus on the definition of what spam is. Trying to ban it
Definition, yes. UBE is usually easier to define and is practically equivalent to spam. But pretty much everyone recognizes a spam if they see one. It is therefore easy for a human to detect spam and take corrective action against a spammer or spamming host.
With regards to a valid contact email address, not valid abuse emailaddress, I still believe that it should be optional.
What should be optional? The abuse address? The contact address? The validity? I think it's very reasonable to require all netblocks to have a valid contact email address.
Please do not forget, that the abuse field shoud be machine readable, currently the abuse address is somewhere hiddden in remark fields, normal email-fields or other things. This is pretty much work for a programmer, if he likes to report spam automatically. Most provider do not like it, when its machine readable, because spammer will flood these addresses and these addresses cannot be used together with content filters, because reports contain snippets from real spam quite often. So: these addresses will be quite a pain, but: thats an OLD argument and: if any provider will do something against spam originating from his IPs, there will be much less reports coming in ;o) Kind regards, Frank
(PS- Jørgen: your mail server rejected my direct message to you. You may want to fix that)
-- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de