Re: More on spam
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 11:37:05AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> One addition to Karsten's questions/issues:
> It has been claimed that one person's spam is another person's ham. To
> what extent is this actually true? Or is this just obfuscation by the
> advocates of spam? If we had collections of ham and spam that have
> been accumulated by different users with different filter set ups, we
> could look for overlap and disjointness of sets. Or just run one
> person's spam thru another person's filter. Lots of opportunities for
> useful statistical studies.
I think insofar that spam == unsolicited commercial email; the
definitions are pretty clear.