Re: we aren't the enemy, but it's hard to prove it

[Chuq Von Rospach]

On 4/30/01 7:18 AM, "James M Galvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I've often wondered if it was practical to create a list of "Certified
> Non-Spammers."  

How would you fund it? Why should anyone (especially AOL) adopt it instead
of their own policies? And most importantly, it seems any organization that
tried this would be setting itself up for huge legal liability issues.

And if you think back to what started this whole discussion -- you can't do
this until there's a common, legally definable and agreed upon definition of
spam, and good luck there -- this thread's here because AOL evidently
thought someone was issuing spam, and the site involved doesn't.... That to
me is basic evidence that more organizational bureaucracy doesn't solve the
core issue here.

If we could just agree on what spam *IS*, we could solve a lot of these
problems. Unfortunately, the basic definition of spam is "all the crap I
don't want to get", and that makes this issue difficult to solve on any
level.

Until that one is resolved, systemic solutions are basically impossible,
since we're stuck at the "it's spam if I point at it" level of 'local
standards'.