From: Dave Crocker <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
...
the fact that addressees are derived incrementally, rather than causing a
"mass" mailing strikes me as a minor point. The mass aspects of spam are
irritating, but not what causes the bulk of public concern.
Spam is most typically defined as unsolicited commercial email.
I think most people who have thought about the issue define spam as
unsolicited bulk mail. See for example RFC 2635.
The problem with defining spam as unsolicited commerical mail is
agreeing what is or is not commercial is hopeless.
By that
definition, the mailing in question qualifies.
I agree, but I bet the sender and others would say it was not commercial.
I think it is reasonable to see it as non-commercial. It is a classic
example of the pitfalls in defining spam by content, the avowed or
assumed intent of the sender, or the offense (not) taken by some
receivers instead of external behavior.
And it is entirely opt-out
based, since the recipient has no choice about receiving the initial mailing.
there is only one thing that calling this "spam" achieves -- it reduces the
impact of the term "spam". when a word means all things, it means nothing.
for all that, I agree we need to be very careful about definitions and
usage. In fact, one might wish to have codification?
The definition of spam has been thoroughly thrashed out elsewhere over
the course of the last several years. I'm surprised to see that so
many people here are evidently unfamiliar with the many megabytes of
that thrashing.
To summarize the trashing, if you define spam as mail that
- offends all of its targets, then almost nothing will be spam except
some mail that is quite private.
- offends some of its targets, than almost all bulk mail will be spam.
- that was sent with avowed good intentions or that supposedly
benefits the recipient more than the sender, then almost nothing
will be spam.
- is commercial, then a lot of clearly non-commercial but offensive
mail won't be spam (e.g. mail that aims to save your soul), and a
lot of other mail will be endlessly controversial as the sender
says it's not commercial and some targets say it is.
- is "promotional", then you have the same problems as with "commercial,"
although the controversies will include religious spam, spam
intended to increase web page hit counts, and so forth.
(A year or two ago, many people advocated "promotional." That
movement fizzled under controversies about whether individual mass
mailings were "promotional.")
- violates terms of service of the sender's ISPs as determined by
the ISP, then you'll find that a lot of what you think is spam isn't,
as demonstrated over the last couple years by a large ISP or two.
The only definition that works is "unsolicited bulk mail."
An individual target cannot always know for certain that a message
is "bulk," but in practice your guess is almost always right.
Someone at an ISP can detect bulk-ness from logs or from complaints.
Individuals can also use checksum clearinghouses to detect bulk-ness.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com