Re: Spam Police (Give me a break!)

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 02:42:07PM -0500, Bill Casti (System Admin) wrote:
> 3. Spam v. To abuse any network service or tool by for promotional
> purposes.

This is an incorrect definition: it's overinclusive, because it covers
a broad range of abuses other than UBE, and it's underinclusive, because
it does not cover UBE sent for non-promotional purposes.

One correct definition is the one I provided yesterday.  It is narrowly
written, it is context-free, it excludes questions of motivation, and
it defines spam in terms of action, not in terms of speech, which is a
necessary precursor toward an effective discussion of spam issues.
(Otherwise, the discussion wanders off into irrelevant areas such as
censorship.)

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]