Jon maddog Hall wrote: >Taran, > >When I said "reply and react", I did not mean directly by email. I meant that >they read the SPAM and somehow "reward" the SPAMer by buying the service or >reacting in some way that is traceable to the email sent (perhaps by >clicking on a specific link in the email). > >I agree with the article completely....it supports my point. > > OK, I apologize for not reading that in your response. That's the bad part of the email medium. We agree 100% - and though I snipped the rest of your response, I agree totally with your definition of SPAM. Yet... some unsolicited email I get from people - individuals, person to person - could be considered SPAM or not, dependant on many factors.
Perhaps part of our (yours and my) definition of SPAM is a matter of how much time we have, how interested we are in the material, and whether or not we have time to respond in the manner which we wish. Suddenly SPAM becomes more of a problem to define. And maybe that's why it's so difficult to solve. That gets me thinking about the RSS again... where priorities within categories and correspondents could be used to prioritize what appears in a reader. -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: Panama City, Panama [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.knowprose.com http://www.easylum.net http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
