On 20180206 16:56, Miles Fidelman wrote:
On 2/6/18 2:47 PM, Anne P. Mitchell Esq. wrote:
I know the definition of spam is very subjective and dependent on your
particular the mail flow along with the expectations of the recipients.
Back when I was in-house counsel at MAPS, Paul (Vixie) and I came up with this
definition of spam:
“An electronic message is “spam” IF: (1) the recipient’s 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.”
I think that it still holds up.
Not bad at all. Actually, quite good!
(Of course, the old definition of pornography also holds: "I know it when I see
it." :-)
Miles Fidelman
"Spam is email *I* don't want to see and never asked for."
With that in mind, do remember that what you consider to be spam may not be the
same as what I call spam or John Hardin considers spam or Marc Perkel considers
spam. (I'm not about to start dating pretty Russian girls. 1) I don't swing that
way. 2) I don't chase babies in arms. 3) ... well you get the idea. Some guys,
however, might think that kind of bait is amusing or might need some under the
counter stuff of one kind or another and be dumb enough to go for it. Males do
seem to do things for unfathomable reasons. Me? I just like to pull the wings
off spam wishing I could do that to the spammers themselves.)
{^_-} Joanne
