on Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:54:39 -0700, J.D. Falk wrote: >On 04/23/02, Dale Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [many examples of messages which might fall under the "bulk" or > "unsolicited" categories even though the recipients might want 'em] > >> Thoughts? > > Back before 1996, before spam had begun to drive people away > from using the Internet, each and every one of the examples > you give would've been acceptable. But as everyone's seen, > the ever-increasing onslaught of spam has caused many people > to stop using e-mail, or to barricade themselves behind ever > less permissive filters and blocking mechanisms. E-mail, as > a communications medium, is being destroyed.
It's academic, but I'm not sure that's the case - the date or the point of view. My recollection is that attitudes, and AUPs, were even more restrictive as to commercial use of the net early on - it was, after all, the Green Card Lottery in 1994 that really introduced the concept of spam to the net. That was usenet, not e-mail, but on the whole it's been downhill from there. As I say, it is academic in that I agree with your overall assessment - e-mail is being destroyed. My last check was a few months ago - at that point, I estimated I was on track to receive over 3,000 pieces of spam in the next year. That's after ruling out anything with even the remotest possible justification. Trust me, I get it. > > If spam weren't such a problem, everyone would be willing to > put up with the occasional message that might fall under > today's definitions of spam. But that word "occasional" is > important. 50 messages per day isn't "occasional," even if > they all come from different people. > > Geeks like exact definitions. So do marketers, who want to > be able to say "we didn't do X and Y, so my message is okay > to send." But the experience of these past six years should > show us that a simple, cut-and-dry definition encompassing > all possibilities, the kind you could write code for, will > NEVER exist. Then what, may I ask, is the point of all this talk? If all this list is for is to piss and moan and cry in our beers about what a terrible thing spam is, then sign me off. As explained, I already get enough e-mail that wastes my time. If you really want to do something about stopping spam, then you have to work towards coming up with a meaningful definition. To throw up your hands and complain that the task is difficult is to give carte blanche to spammers. If there is no agreement on what spam is, there can be no rules against spam. Geeks, and marketers, and lawmakers need standards to judge behaviors against - and if that standard is "I know it when I see it," you might as well pull the plug on the net right now. And if it is true that those terms are hopelessly diffficult to define, then what? What's the plan of attack then? Regards, Dale _______________________________________________ spamcon-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.spamcon.org/mailman/listinfo/spamcon-general#subscribers Subscribe, unsubscribe, etc: Use the URL above or send "help" in body of message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact administrator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
