Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 21:24:50 +0800
From: "Tim Kehres" <kehres(_at_)ima(_dot_)com>
Message-ID: <10e401c1cdb7$3ce5ffe0$05f0a8c0(_at_)jade(_dot_)net>
| Traditional metrics for defining spam
| (header forging, indiscriminate mass mailings, use of third party relays,
| etc.) don't seem to be understood by many these days,
That's because they're not the definition of spam - they're tools used by
spammers to avoid retribution. They're often useful as a quick test of
what is (or might be) spam, but they're certainly not requirements.
| A previous posting asking to be removed due to the amount of spam received
| (defined by this recipient as being content not interesting to them,
That is almost the definition of spam - though unsolicited needs to be
added, so ...
| despite their membership on the list)
if the messages were on topic for the list, then that's not spam, just a
bad subscription choice. If they weren't, that's different.
Some people require spam be bulk mail (sent to lots of recipients) - personally
I see no sense in that, there's no easy way for any individual recipient to
tell if they got the only copy of the message, or just one copy of a million
sent to different addresses.
So:
| One of our
| staff when sending a message to a customer asking if we could be of any
| assistance in their deployment of our software
if the customer didn't ask for help, that could be regarded as spam.
It would be pretty rare for anyone to complain much about something like
that though.
kre