Why don't we just use "UBE", since that's self-explanatory, instead of the
vague (and trademarked) term "spam"?
I've been keeping my mouth shut mainly because I didn't feel my
contributions were worth further clutturring your mailboxes, but since I'm
doing exactly that now, I'll tell you a story.
I've only had one encounter with UBE as a system administrator and
Internet resource reseller. One of my clients resold some web space and
an e-mail POP box to another gentleman who immediately proceeded to send
out several thousand (or more?) unsolicited messages (amusingly with the
title "RE: Information you requested"). Neither myself, my client, nor my
network service provider, had any idea that this was going on. Yet, when
I checked the next day, I had an insulting message on my voicemail, and
a couple dozen canned threats, form letters, or simple insults in my
mailbox. My client woke up with 400 such messages. Fortunately, we were
able to simply deny the genlteman further access to his POP box or web
space and the threats stopped. But I was rather distressed, frustrated,
and annoyed by the response from the public and their ISPs. It seems that
every one of them was fighting spam with spam. I did getone or two polite
and well-considered threats, but most of the responses to the bulk e-mail
were merely insulting and generally not well-thought out. In many cases
they were generic responses to bulk e-mail with a copy of the message they
received tacked on to the end.
Now, I know that I can't expect people to spend a long time sending a
customized formal complaint for each message they receive, but it's
frustrating to me the type of responses I got. Personally, I've never had
a problem with unsolicited e-mail (less than 5-10 a week usually). the
problems I've had are with people complaining (like on a ne-mail list when
someone posts something off-topic and I get 50 messages saying "don't post
that stuff" and then "don't respond to everyone on the list" and finally
"don't tell everyone to stop responding to everyone on the list"). I'm
sure I'm not an adequate cross-sample of the net population, but to me it
seems that the problem is not spam but rather people's lack of tolerance.
----------------------
Ken Gourlay
Chain Communications
----------------------
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> 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]
>
