Jan Pieter Cornet wrote:

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 05:44:28PM +0100, Jørgen Hovland wrote:

From many previous discussions I have a hard time believing that you will 
ever reach consensus on the definition of what spam is. Trying to ban it


Definition, yes. UBE is usually easier to define and is practically
equivalent to spam. But pretty much everyone recognizes a spam if they
see one. It is therefore easy for a human to detect spam and take
corrective action against a spammer or spamming host.

Thats where I believe you are not entirely correct. UBE is permitted in my country (not all types of course, greasy ones etc). Yes, it is usually what you/I define as spam.
However, some customers still want it (I sometimes monitor whitelists in order to correct blacklists).
Who are we to override the end-users decisions? Only the government should do that, and sometimes even they shouldn't.

With regards to a valid contact email address, not valid abuse 
emailaddress, I still believe that it should be optional.


What should be optional? The abuse address? The contact address? The
validity? I think it's very reasonable to require all netblocks to have
a valid contact email address.

Any email address. Yes it is reasonable, but I still think it should be optional. Thats also what we decided last time the topic was brought up. Perhaps people have changed their opinion now. I was actually amazed that the suggestion to make it mandatory was rejected.

(PS- Jørgen: your mail server rejected my direct message to you. You
may want to fix that)

It gets fixed by the system when I send you this email. I get ~8000 spam daily. I have to be a little strict :-)

Cheers,