Barry Shein wrote:
Well, I realize there's a lot of emotional investment in this "moral
hazard" view of spam as "stuff I don't want and/or didn't ask for" but
I still think a more reasonable definition is bulk email which is
unpaid for (analogous to postage.)
By your definition this mailing list consists of spam, doesn't it?
I still like better the definition that Rich quoted previously in this
thread, namely
The correct definition of spam (in the context of SMTP) is
"unsolicited bulk email".
I wonder why it isn't mentioned on the ASRG's FAQ.
I don't particularly care if it was solicited or not. [...]
It also removes most of the judgement. Who really wants to argue
whether something is "solicited" or not?
Unsolicited is the key concept. The fact that solicitations are not
being registered is even more astonishing than the missing definition
of spam.
It's a rathole. For example, subsidiaries, partners, etc. Ebay owns
paypal, so if you told ebay to send you updates does that mean paypal
can also send you "updates"?
[...] Is that spam?
What you are talking about is "somewhat abusive mass marketing". It
may be considered spam, but it bears no false identification and is
not sent via zombies. Just to note that you cannot impose payments on
criminal activities.
I don't really care. I just think if they had to pay for delivery
maybe they wouldn't pelt me and everyone else daily.
That statement is only correct given the current contingency. At other
times, mass marketing through paid media, e.g. phone, results in
intolerantly frequent calls. In general, money is not trustworthy as a
unit of measure, and it tends to propel crime more often than it
prevents it.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg