Shelby >>> When did an auto-response become spam?
Mark >>When your "auto" "responds" to people who have not emailed you, for
one.
Shelby >I agree with that. Unfortunately you did email me, using the list as
an open relay.
A) an Auto-response definitely becomes spam when it is sent to somebody
without their permission and when it is advertising something. Especially
when that person never mailed you before.
A.1) Mark did not send an email to you.
Yes he did, using the list as a relay, just as a spammer could join the list
and send spam to all of us using the list as relay.
Mark knows that when he sends to the list, he emails goes to all members.
An email list is not a relay (nor, should I add, is it an open relay). Learn
the differences :-)
It is if it allows a spammer to join and use it to send spam. The signup for
this list is unmoderated.
(With a relay, mark supplies YOUR email. With a list, YOU supply your
email.)
The list relays email. Get dictionary.
He posted to an email list, to which you had subscribed.
While it may be your right to automatically respond to somebody when they
email you,
Agreed.
it is NOT your right to scrape email list archives and automatically send
advertisements
to all the participants,
And I did *NOT* do that.
and it is not your right to sign up a robot which
sits there and spams each participant as they post
That is why Guy helped us with a solution for AccuSpam that insures if I forget
to whitelist a list, the worst that will happen is only one person who relies
email to me via the list will get my auto-response (if that person does not
respond to the auto-response), then the list is blacklisted for me only, until
I whitelist the list in AccuSpam.
Stop fighting. It is already solved.
I agree with that. Unfortunately you did email me, using the list as
an open relay.
It was not Mark that emailed you -- it was you that requested a copy of
Mark's email --
Or that Mark requested to send email to all members of the list.
Two ways of looking at it. You have your perspective and other users have
their perspective.
Stop fighting. It is already solved with idea from Guy.
then proceeded to automatically send him an autoresponder
containing an advertisement for your product. You did not first ask Mark's
permission to join the list and get copies of his emails, mark may not even
have known that you joined the list until your first post.
Mark knows this risk when he joins a mailing list.
Stop fighting. It is already solved with idea from Guy.
Lets say you had joined the list, and Mark didn't know it, and he posted,
and got an autoreply from you which advertised your product, would you say
then that you had spammed Mark?
If Mark emails me, LEGALLY I can send any kind of reply I want. I already said
I want to cooperate with mailing lists, so Stop fighting. It is already solved
with idea from Guy.
(I'll agree that your intent probably was not to spam everybody, but we're
talking about whether or not you spammed, we're not debating your intent.)
Spam in my definition is unsolicited BULK email. Unsolicited email is
impossible to define because definition thus changes with each person. I could
say any email you send me spam if you use "Unsolicited email" without the BULK
qualification. Luckily most people agree that getting rid of "unsolicited BULK
email" would end spam. You may not agree.
But look, it's not so bad. Lots of people spam list members intentionally,
and some even spam lists intentionally.
It's okay to say "Sorry about the spam, it was accidental.."
I think the better term for what you are describing is "trolling" or posting
against the charter.
I'm a bit surprised at your unwillingness to admit that it was spam -- I
Because I prefer to use definitions that have meaning.
can't imagine anybody but a spammer making such an argument,
but since you're in the business of fighting spam, you're certainly not a
spammer.
I am in the business of fighting "unsolicited BULK email" which is what I
define as spam.
I am *NOT* in business of determining what is GOOD and what is BAD content.
Make that very clear because that is very important point, both LEGALLY and
PHILOSOPHICALLY.
It is why I am against Bayesian (besides that it is very easy to defeat).
Thanks,
Shelby