Hello Mike, Friday, June 13, 2003, 12:32:49 PM, you wrote:
>> Nor are my uninformed/untrained family/friends sending me >> unsolicited commercial email when they send me HTML emails. > "Uninformed/untrained family/friends" are, or should be, trainable by > a respected and experienced user. You don't have the patience to teach "a well-intentioned Bayesian filtering program what spam is", and I don't have the time to teach all of my friends that HTML email will send the earth spinning out of its orbit. >> However, if we want to play word games, I guess we could refer to >> anything we feel like as "spam". > Word games? Oh really? I was present at the creation of e-mail and > HTML was against the rules then, just as it is now. As far as I know, the standard accepted definition of spam is "unsolicited commercial email". To say that *all* HTML email is spam when I can provide specific examples of HTML email that is neither unsolicited nor commercial, is to change the definition of spam to include whatever *you* feel like including, thereby deviating from the standard definition of spam, and thereby playing word games. > Puleeeeze! No more of this "HTML = good" stuff with my name on > it, eh? I have stated that while in general I do not like HTML email, but am willing to make specific exceptions. I have stated that for that reason, for my purposes I would consider a rejection of *all* HTML email as draconian. I have stated that classifying all HTML email as spam does not fit the standard definition of spam. Nowhere have I stated "HTML = good". -- Dave ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
