[Asrg] SPF and other bad ideas

[Steve Atkins]

On Jan 20, 2009, at 3:57 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 08:12:33AM +0100, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> Since we are not able to come up with a definition of spam, we cannot
>> define what is legitimate use either.
>
> The correct definition of spam has been well-known as "unsolicited  
> bulk
> email" for many years -- a definition that traces its lineage back to
> the use of earlier, less precise terms such as "mail mail abuse" and
> "junk mail" that were around in the early 1980's.

Actually, no.

The "correct" definition of spam varies depending on the context
you're using the term in.

Which is one of the reasons it's a good idea to avoid the term
entirely, and instead be specific in your terminology.

>  Please, let's not
> reopen this question here, as there is absolutely no need to do so  
> given
> that it's been covered in excruciating depth elsewhere.

That I can agree with.

Cheers,
   Steve