On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 11:35 +0100, Phil (Medway Hosting) wrote: > The law is an ass. The "definition of spam" has absolutely nothing to do > with that. > > "It's consent - not content". > > The content or purpose of the mail has no bearing on it at all.
I'm sure if you speak to Steve Linford of Spamhaus, and the bloke from e360 Insight, you'd get two more differing opinions of what spam is and isn't. And if you speak to the different US circuit court judges involved in their ongoing case and appeal, you'll get differing opinions again. Whether or not the law is half horse, half donkey (which is controversial in itself) is irrelevant - the regulations stated by Ian are the only *statutory* definition available to people in the UK. There are, as examples show, many other definitions - you are free to make your own choice. [Wearing list moderator's hat] What this has to do with Exim, specifically, I'm failing to see. If you want to argue the toss over the definition of spam, SPAM-L is over there -> Graeme -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
