David Bryant wrote:
> Fresh from http://www.boston.com/...
> A national e-mail campaign is urging all US residents to ...
> Looks like the spam campaign has picked up some backing.
A couple of people on the list have used the term spam to
describe this email chain. which just got me to wondering:
just how wide of a definition do we have for spam?
It's not like this was a 'get rich quick' scheme that
was mass-emailed to list of email addresses harvested
off of the internet asking you to send money.
just wondering where people are drawing the line between
what is "acceptable" (or 'welcome') and what is spam.
(I assume spam is unwelcome)
as an example, if I send everyone I personally know the
following email:
<email>
Free Dimitry, Boycott Adobe, Fight DMCA
http://www.eff.org
Forward this to anyone you think could help this cause
<\email>
would this be unacceptable?
would it be acceptable if I simply send everyone a
'how ya doin' email, and then sign it with the
exact same text as above?
is it simply a matter of content?
i.e. "fight DMCA" is acceptable,
"light a candle" is unacceptable?
and it doesn't matter how the message is sent
(standalone or signature)
"get rich quick" emails are unwelcome in my book,
but I was wondering how wide do people draw the line.
comments?
curiouser and curiouser,
Greg
get free perl code at http://www.cpan.org
