On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 09:06:40 -0600, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop"
<mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>> Spam being unsolicited broadcast email, I would say that if you agree to
>> receive it, it cannot be spam. This definition has held up well over the
>> twenty-five years I've been involved in the industry.
>
>Indeed, and it was formalized in item (2) in the Vixie/Mitchell defintion of
>spam, which was promulgated ~20 years ago:
>
>An electronic message is spam IF: (1) the recipients personal identity and
>context are
>irrelevant because the message is equally applicable to many other potential
>recipients;
>AND (2) the recipient has not verifiably granted deliberate, explicit, and
>still-revocable
>permission for it to be sent; AND (3) the transmission and reception of the
>message
>appears to the recipient to give a disproportionate benefit to the sender.
>
>Interesting sidenote: While this definition was originally posted on the MAPS
>website, lo those ~20 years ago, I note that it is now posted on thousands of
>sites.
At airmail.net back in those antediluvian days, we did policy enforcement
based on the 'B' in UBE being "Bulk". When I spoke to someone whom we had
terminated for sending UBE, he scoffed: "Bulk!? I only sent 11,000. BULK
would be 100,000 or more."
Consequently, I looted the world of network terminology to distinguish
Unicast, Multicast, and Broadcast as basic classifications of messages, and we
then declared the 'B' in UBE to stand for Broadcast. So, you only have to send
two substantially identical messages to people who didn't give you explicit
permission for us to hose you off the deck for spamming. This was in 1996.
mdr
--
"There will be more spam."
-- Paul Vixie
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
