| reply to cbs228
Re: I don't care what kind of spam it is... So what then, is your definition of "spam?" Is it "I know it when I see it" or "any email I don't want to receive?" The well-accepted definition (and that proffered by even the most rabid anti-spammers) is "unsolicited commercial email," which means that political email cannot be considered spam.
It would be interesting to see an ISP contend that a political candidate or organization's sending of purely political unsolicited emails somehow violates their TOS, and to then have a court decide, as they have with other free speech matters, just where the limits are as to Internet private property rights and political speech.
Clark
[text was edited by author 2002-07-13 11:05:09] |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Then maybe the definition needs updating. Firing off mass emailing of political tripe is just as much SPAM as UCE is.
|
|
|
|
| reply to clark252
Personally, I have a simple definition of spam.
If I don't know you, haven't done business with you, and didn't ask you to send me e-mail, then its spam and will be reported.
As my company's postmaster, when our content filtering software tags something as spam, I apply the following rule: Does it have ANY business related purpose to our business?
If it does, I let it through. If not, it gets reported. |
|
cbs228Geeks Of The World, Unite
join:2000-09-04
Saint Louis, MO | reply to clark252
My personal definition of Spam:
If an electronic mail message....
- Is BCC'd (Blind Carbon Copied) to more than ten people
- Was sent to multiple persons and is not part of a mailing list to which you personally subscribed and may unsubscribe at any time
- The parties sending the electronic mail will [probably] not cease and desist when asked to do so
- There is an attempt to disguise the message's point of origin my the manipulation or falsification of SMTP headers
- The message was not sent by anyone you know
If the message matches two of the above or more, I will consider it spam and report it. Messages will also be considered spam on the basis of content.
--
If you stare too long into the abyss the abyss stares back at you. -Nietzsche |
|
| reply to clark252
Clark252 wrote "The well-accepted definition (and that proffered by even the most rabid anti-spammers) is "unsolicited commercial email," which means that political email cannot be considered spam."
No, Unsolicited Bulk Email is at least as common a definition. I don't care if you're spamming porn, drugs, chain letters, your political/religious opinions, or whatever. If you're sending messages to total strangers in multiple quantities, you're a spammer.
Also, the only people trying to drag free speech into this debate are 1) spammers or 2) people who've never read the Constitution. 1st Amendment: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...
It doesn't say Earthlink, or any Mom & Pop ISP, is obligated to carry your mail. Kinda like the way the New York Times isn't violating your right to free speech/press when they decline to print your 10,000 word letter to the editor on the front page. The GOVERNMENT can't stop them from doing it, but their accountants sure can. Spam = theft. I only wish this guy & I both lived in Chicago - then I could vote against him two or three times. |
|
 MashikiBalking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON
 ·Bright House
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to cbs228
said by cbs228:
My personal definition of Spam:
If an electronic mail message....
- Is BCC'd (Blind Carbon Copied) to more than ten people
- Was sent to multiple persons and is not part of a mailing list to which you personally subscribed **snip snip**
A thumbs up, and well put. |
|
| reply to Die Spammers
Well, I'm not a spammer and I've spent a fair amount of time reading the Constitution. I'm a lawyer, so it kinda goes with the territory. Believe me, I understand the concept of "state action" versus private action and private property rights.
Let's look at it from another angle. The use of email is becoming more and more ubiquitous. However, several ISPs decide to use a spam "blacklist" that contains the IP addresses of a political candidate or political organization (aka "spammers"), effectively blocking their email from receipt by the ISP's subscribers. Do you think the e-mailing politician has a claim? How about the subscriber who didn't receive the politician's e-mailings? Or, what about the political candidate or organization whose e-mailings the ISPs did let through? Do they now have some sort of advantage over the "blocked" candidate?
I for one think spam is bad, and I don't care much for the volume I receive. But, I do not believe any ISP or sysadmin has the right to filter any email that is sent to me, even if they believe in their heart of hearts that it is being sent by a spammer. I pay my ISP to provide email services to me, and I alone should be able to decide what I bounce, delete, receive or complain about. To allow otherwise opens a communications conduit of ever-increasing importance to the possibility of abuse, both commercial and political.
Clark |
|
 richk_1957If ..Then..ElsePremium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith | reply to Die Spammers
said by Die Spammers:
Clark252 wrote Kinda like the way the New York Times isn't violating your right to free speech/press when they decline to print your 10,000 word letter to the editor on the front page. The GOVERNMENT can't stop them from doing it, but their accountants sure can. Spam = theft. I only wish this guy & I both lived in Chicago - then I could vote against him two or three times.
Agreed - to a point. The NY Times [or any other media]has accountants and/or editors that can knock down things people send in which would not be money-making. But when you get SPAM, YOU are losing bandwith [which could be considered money, since you pay for your bandwith] and have no way of editing it out
Maybe when you join a political party, you should have the option to "opt-in" for e-mail from that party.
Or at one time [maybe when you go to vote?] , you should have the option to "opt-in" for any political e-mail.
These are only suggestions off the top of my head, but we should have some choice here!! |
|
 KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | reply to dreverett
That is absurd
KM |
|
| reply to clark252
said by clark252:
However, several ISPs decide to use a spam "blacklist" that contains the IP addresses of a political candidate or political organization (aka "spammers"), effectively blocking their email from receipt by the ISP's subscribers. Do you think the e-mailing politician has a claim?
No- not at all, and here's why. If they did it like the rest of the responsible businesses do, they'd have a card at their fundraisers, or a form on their webpage that the recipient would fill out which says "I REQUEST to receive e-mail from you"
said by clark252:
How about the subscriber who didn't receive the politician's e-mailings? Or, what about the political candidate or organization whose e-mailings the ISPs did let through? Do they now have some sort of advantage over the "blocked" candidate? I for one think spam is bad, and I don't care much for the volume I receive. But, I do not believe any ISP or sysadmin has the right to filter any email that is sent to me, even if they believe in their heart of hearts that it is being sent by a spammer. I pay my ISP to provide email services to me, and I alone should be able to decide what I bounce, delete, receive or complain about.
That's why most of your ISP's now have an On\Off filtering feature. Anything that they think is junk goes in a folder on each user's mailbox. If you find that something goes there that shouldn't, you tell it to accept it, and it does.
As my company's e-mail Postmaster, it is my job to make sure that e-mail etiquette is followed. Even when a manager says, "We can send to whoever we want", and I have to explain why that's not the case.
And I'm proud to say that we've never had a complaint by being respectful of people's time and e-mail boxes. |
|
