[Standards-JIG] Re: privacy2 anti-SPIM proto-JEP

Trejkaz trejkaz at trypticon.org
Tue Aug 30 01:33:39 UTC 2005

Quoting Bart van Bragt <jabber at vanbragt.com>:
> IMO the distinction isn't that black and white. The subscription 
> request that triggered you to look at the vCard is a part of the 
> spam. If you look at the vCard doesn't even matter. If we want to 
> call the vCard or the request or both spam is just a matter of 
> semantics IMO. Not very relevant in this case. We want to prevent 
> subscription requests sent by spammers. That's the important bit here 
> :)

Problem is, having something that looks like spam in the vCard doesn't
automatically make the person a spammer.

Suppose that I work for an online casino.  As people often have their work
details in their vCard, I would have http://casino.example.com in the homepage
field of my vCard.

Now, let's suppose I try to add one of my friends to my roster, so that we can
have a little chat.  I have to send a subscription request, and that user may
well click on something to look at my vCard.  But I'm not spamming them.  I'm
not *planning* to spam them.  I'm merely being discriminated against by some
second-rate system which can't tell the difference between my vCard and 
who was employed by the same casino to actually spam people.

So sure, it's a matter of semantics... but semantics are everything.


This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

More information about the Standards mailing list