[179674] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: vendor spam OTD
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rich Kulawiec)
Tue Apr 28 17:52:19 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:52:10 -0400
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <21823.47024.673166.569627@world.std.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:39:12PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
> As more and more "legitimate" companies exploit email as a free
> resource I think we're going to need to broaden the definition of
> spam.
Absolutely not. The canonical -- and only correct -- definition
is UBE, as Suresh pointed out. It has served us well for decades
and it continues to do so.
HOWEVER -- there are other forms of abuse carried by SMTP and we have
names for some of those. If it turns out that yet one more form of
abuse is becoming a problem and thus we need a term to refer to it,
we can and should come up with one.
It's also worth noting that some instances of abuse can be described
by more than one term. Abusers, unfortunately, can be quite creative
and prolific.
---rsk
