Legitimate volume mail.
gsechan at hotmail.com
Sun May 2 23:41:58 PDT 2004
>From: Stewart Stremler <bofh at stremler.net>
>>begin quoting Gabriel Sechan as of Sun, May 02, 2004 at 04:18:38PM -0500:
> > Sure it is. Spam is unsolcited email. Period.
>So when your long-lost cousin Bubba discovers your email address on the
>Web and sends you a unsolicited email, that's spam?
If I have a long lost cousin named Bubba, I assure you I never want to hear
from him. Ever.
>But if you insist, then your cousin is a spammer, and should have his
>account immediately terminated. Of course, that destroys one of the basic
>benefits of email, and makes all this whining about spam self-indulgent
>grandstanding, as you should obviously just set up a whitelist and ignore
>everything that doesn't pass. No more spam, ever.
>Or, you allow that Bubba's email _isn't_ spam, although it's unsolicited,
>in which case the assertion that "Spam is unsolicted email. Period." is
No, I disagree that its unsolicited. If he got my address, either I gave it
to him once upon a time, gave it to something like classmates where I expect
contact from it, or have a web ppresence where I've publicized my email for
legitamate contact purposes. The only way he could have gotten it is from
that, which makes it solicited.
> > For that matter, it doesn't have to be email. I call my junkmail in
> > tree format spam.
>Oddly enough, there's a perfectly good word for that, too. Your abuse
>of the language and lax standards do not make your personal definition a
>useful common definition.
>Junkmail is junkmail. Calling junkmail "spam" tells your listener nothing
>aside from indicating that you're being either pretentious or careless.
>It's like a woman claiming that someone ogling her in a bar commited
>rape" -- it's a statement purely for effect, designed to villify another
>party, but it's done in such a way that it diminishes the strength and
>of a word that _needs_ to be precise. Junkmail is junkmail, and *includes*
>spam and UCE; spam-isa-junkmail, but not junkmail-isa-spam.
Nope. You're takiing a nebulously defined word (spam) and trying to say it
has a strict definition that forces it to be bulk. It doesn't. You're the
one trying to backport a speciic definition onto a word in common use. The
term you should be using is "unsolicited bulk email". Spam is a general
term for unwanted push communications.
> > And volume isn't subjective? Whats the magic number for xpam/not spam.
> > 10? 100?
>Remember cancelmoose? That's exactly how it worked.
I may regreat saying this, but I have no idea what you're talking about.
> > What if I send n-1, is that spam?
SO if we decide n=2 is spam, I will send, then n=1 is spam as well. I win
> > Volume isn't really objective either.
>Sure it is.
>You /can/ assign a number. You /can't/ determine if someone would be
Yes, but the number you assign is subjective. So I'm making it subjectively
Getting married? Find tips, tools and the latest trends at MSN Life Events.
More information about the KPLUG-List