On December 31, 2004 at 12:23 sethb(_at_)panix(_dot_)com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
To put it more simply: email worms are spam.
They're sent in bulk.
They're unsolicited.
They're email.
So how would they not be spam?
The point is probably academic, but one difference is that even
if the email worms weren't sent in bulk they'd be considered a
problem.
Put another way, there's thus far no form of an email worm which
non-insane people would consider acceptable email. That's not true of
advertising email.
Also, worms don't by their nature carry commercial content, not that
an exception would obviate that point.
At any rate there would seem to be some taxonomic utility in
distinguishing between worms (delivered via email) per se and
unsolicited commercial/bulk email in general.
If for no other reason than the more we conflate them the more we
confuse public dialogue (e.g., the media, legislators, etc.) Consider
for example the laws against each (unsolicited advertising vs worms.)
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs(_at_)TheWorld(_dot_)com |
http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg