Wait. There was spam before Anne Mitchell defined it for the rest of us? On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:44 PM Michael Rathbun via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 16:08:50 -0400, Damon via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> > wrote: > > >Back in the day of the IETF ASRG, I think we said it’s spam if the user > >calls it spam. In other words - it’s in the eye of the beholder. For legal > >purposes UBE, and later UCE, were defined with the legal speak. > > "SPAM" was first "Software Person Attempting Management", at least in Ford's > Engine Engineering groups back in the '80s. Then, after the greencard Usenet > event, it meant "The same thing, over and over and over again." > > Then came Willie Newell, SoundCity, S. Wallace, and many others. Hormel > agreed that "SPAM" referred to their proprietary meat-ish product, and other > formats of those four letters could refer to unwanted network traffic. So, > don't write "SPAM" unless you are speaking of some variety of spiced ham. > > Brussels Sprouts optional. > > The central concept has always been "consent, not content". Still works well > 25 years later. > > mdr > -- > "There are no laws here, only agreements." > -- Masahiko > > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
-- al iverson // wombatmail // chicago http://www.aliverson.com http://www.spamresource.com _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
