not that it answers the question, but i think SPAM is Unsolicited Commercial
Email (UCE). the candle message is unsolicited but not commercial so i
guess it doesn't fit the definition?
> From: Greg London <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 12:10:03 -0400
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Boston.pm] spam
>
> 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
>
