IGF | Forum | | | |

IGF Discussion Space
Welcome, %1$s. Please login or register.
June 17, 2018, 11:52:46 PM

:    

Select language:

+  IGF Discussion Space
|-+  IGF Athens Theme Discussion
| |-+  Security - Creating trust and confidence through collaboration
| | |-+  Do we have to come up with an agreed definition on spam?
« previous next »
: Do we have to come out an agreed definition on spam?  (Voting closed: November 12, 2006, 09:03:20 AM)
Agree - 1 (50%)
Disagree - 0 (0%)
Not so familiar with the topic - 1 (50%)
: 2

: [1] |
: Do we have to come up with an agreed definition on spam?  ( 21768 )
CloudiaY
Registered User

: 3


« : November 02, 2006, 09:03:20 AM »

The WSIS Geneva Declaration of Principles described Spam as a significant and growing problem for users, networks and the Internet.  WSIS suggested it to be dealt with at appropriate national and international levels. 

While the volume of commercially oriented spam remains a serious concern, there have been several multilateral, multi-stakeholder frameworks for regional and international cooperation on the issue.  However, some problems remain unsolved: no-unified definition, additional costs imposed, the privacy invasion and malicious attacks, disproportionate effect on less-developing countries, as well as the benchmark of electronic commercial message regulation and freedom of expression.

First question need to be raised is do we have to come up with an agreed definition on Spam globally?
boyd
Registered User

: 3


« #1 : November 06, 2006, 03:12:37 PM »

CloudiaY wrote:

> First question need to be raised is do we have to come up with an agreed definition
> on Spam globally?

Difficult indeed. But we could already start at the other end: refusing mail from all computers (the zombies/botnets) which are the main source and are not real mail servers. That's quite simple, but we need to agree on some naming conventions worldwide for that.
mia76
Registered User

: 2

mia76


« #2 : May 17, 2007, 01:12:18 PM »

CloudiaY wrote:

> First question need to be raised is do we have to come up with an agreed definition
> on Spam globally?

Difficult indeed. But we could already start at the other end: refusing mail from all computers (the zombies/botnets) which are the main source and are not real mail servers. That's quite simple, but we need to agree on some naming conventions worldwide for that.

Yes, but I also think the definition should include "for commercial purposes" (although not all SPAM are necessarily for commercial purposes but most are) we could come up with a list of several characteristics of SPAM and put them in a "definition article" and then put the list characteristics in it. an email would not have to have all the characteristics to count as SPAM. for instance:
- generated by bots
- for commercial purposes
- unrequested by the recipient
- [insert more here]
- etc.

avasta
Registered User

: 1


« #3 : February 04, 2008, 01:26:15 PM »

I think it is an impossible task, as the definition of spam implies that too many parties involved, with too many interests in conflict, have to agree on it.
Better to improve the technical solutions aimed at filtering from the suorces of spamming
: [1] |  
« previous next »
:  

Valid XHTML 1.0! SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid CSS!