Le 13/12/2010 23:45, Martin Gregorie a écrit :
On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 22:19 +0100, mouss wrote:
Le 13/12/2010 10:38, Martin Gregorie a écrit :
As others have said, it depends who sent it and why. Invitations sent
specifically by people who know you aren't spam, but I've heard it said
several times that Facebook auto-generates invitations from contact
lists uploaded by new members and in my book that's definitely spam.
no, that's not spam. that's stupid friends behaviour.
If you're certain that's the case I agree that its not really spam.
if you define spam in a too large way, you will lose some of us. feel
free to go the vigilante way.
I don't remotely intend to go vigilante: I don't know how you got that
from what I said, which I thought boiled down to:
sorry, I didn't mean you are a vigilante. I just wanted to warn about
going there. nothing about _you_.
a) If an acquaintance asks you become a member that is not a problem.
b) If a social site uses member address lists to send invitations
to join without consulting the list owner then that is disreputable
behaviour and the resulting invitations are UCE at best.
fuly agreed. but that's how thing are going today. so I'll start by the
beginning: a stupid user gave them his addr book. I mean
- the guy who gave them his addr book is a stupid guy
- they should never ask for that
so both are guilty.
c) If there's a way to distinguish (a) and (b) then it would be possible
to treat (b) as UCE.
no. I think it's a different beast. there is no point to try to match
how some people have tried to define spam. we all know what spam is.
those ube, uce, blahblah-e are unhelpful. you know what spam is. I know
what spam is. there is no need to define it with 3 letters.
I'm not doing anything about these invitations at present apart from
hitting Delete,
same here. I checked linkedin mail and I found 2 messages that may be
spam. that's 2 in many years. there are things I don't like in linkedin
practice, but realy, I don't get nough spam from them to consider that
there is a problem. I get a lot more junk from yahoo...
but if there was a distinguishing rule and I saw these
invitations significantly more often than once or twice a year then I
might well want to treat them like any other form of UCE. I'm not an ISP
and don't run mailing lists, so I'm in the fortunate position of being
able to deep-six UCE. If I want to buy something I'll research it with a
search engine, by talking to friends, etc. but I DO NOT want to be
bombarded with UCE just because I happen to have bought a similar item
in the past.
please don't minsuderstand me. if you get a lot of spam from linkedin, I
would like to hear about it. I don't work for linkedin and I don't care
for their business, blah blah. I simply care for mail service. if you
convince me that linkedin are spammers, I'll have something to say about
blocking their mail. but for that, I want evidence. not just a vigilante
report with no evidence.
up so far, the only thing I've seen is a message forwarded by a debian
list. I myself am a member of many debian lists. I do get a lot of junk
in these lists, and that spam annoys me, but really, I consider that to
be the price for having open lists, and I like that.
FWIW I'm far more annoyed by UCE agencies who either don't have an
'un-subscribe' capability or, much worse, who include the line "You're
receiving this because you subscribed.... .... you can un-subscribe by
visiting<<URL>>" and whose URL goes through the motions but doesn't
actually unsubscribe you.
I'm more annoyed by junk sent to _other_ people. I mean "normal" people.
I can handle the junk I get (after postfix + spamassassin checks, I get
about 1 or 2 spams a month). but users of the service get more spam than
myself...
