Author: Robin Smith
Date: 10:24:07 06/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2002 at 21:01:43, Sune Fischer wrote: >On June 28, 2002 at 18:49:37, Robin Smith wrote: > >>On June 28, 2002 at 13:57:11, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>Man, it is not getting through to you, is it? >>>Look here, just below: >>> >>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?237855 >>> >>>and here: >>>http://spam.abuse.net/overview/whatisspam.shtml >>> >>>it is spam, get it? >> >>The ICD e-mail does not fit the description of spam given on the site you >>mention above! Why do you provide a site link that undermines your contention >>that the ICD e-mail was spam? Did you even read it? > >Yes I did, and it does fit. > >>Here are some quotes from the site you mention: >>"Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message" >> >>ICD did not "flood the Internet", it was a message about computer chess, >>targeted exclusively towards computer chess enthusiasts. And it was sent to a >>privately developed mailing list of SOME of those entusiasts. So the ICD e-mail >>fails the "flood the internet" criteria for being spam. > >this is flooding, you don't have to send a billion to be flooding. >many identical copies indicates the mail was not targeted for individual persons >but had the character of spam. > > >>"Most spam is commercial advertising, often for dubious products, get-rich-quick >>schemes, or quasi-legal services." >> >>While the ICD message was commercial advertising, it matches NONE of the other >>mentioned criteria such as dubious products, etc. In fact the commercial nature >>of the e-mail was the ONLY aspect that fits any parts of the description of >>spam. > >Dubious is free to interpretation, any product adverticed in an email sent to >hundreds of people I see as dubious. > >>But please note, the site you quote does NOT say that all commercial >>e-mails are spam, in fact it clearly indicates that e-mail must be more than >>merely commercial to be spam. > >No, they need not have anything to do with commercial products, though they most >often do. >"Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, in an >attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise choose to receive >it." > > >>The ICD e-mail doesn't fit this "type" of spam at all. > >Those are logical ORs not ANDs :) >If it fits one of them it is spam. > >>"Email spam targets individual users with direct mail messages. Email spam lists >>are often created by scanning Usenet postings, stealing Internet mailing lists, >>or searching the Web for addresses." >> >>This is tiny bit closer, but still does not match. ICD did not scan Usenet, did >>not steal mailing lists, did not search the web. It is their own private >>mailing list, which they created at great time and expense on their part, and >>which is not shared with anyone else. And if you don't want to be on this >>mailing list, unsubscribe, as you can with any other respectable commercial >>mailing list. >> >>I just don't understand how you can equate an e-mail targeted directly towards a >>very limited group of people that clearly have a HIGH probability of being >>interested in the content of the e-mail, as being spam. > >Because high probability or not, it is not relevant to the definition of spam. >Spammers often try to target their spam to the users they feel are most probably >costumers, it is still spam. > > >> Commercial e-mail is >>not == spam. For an e-mail to be spam it generally will be (based on reading >>the site link *you* provided): 1) commercial, 2) sent to a very broad >>distribution at low cost to the sender and 3) unlikely to be of interest to the >>vast majority of recipients. But the commercial nature of ICD's e-mail >>(criteria #1) is the ONLY thing that matches the description of spam on the site >>you mentioned. >> >>My ONLY regret with the ICD e-mail is that for me it came one day too late, as I >>had just placed an order the day before. I have a question. Do you think that >>ANY e-mail list that is for commercial purposes is automatically spam? If not, >>then what commercial e-mail lists are NOT spam? >> >>>The rest of your mail is not worth my time... >> >>If someone sees things differently from you, their mail is not worth your time? >>What a bland world this would be if everyone agreed with everyone else. In the >>mean time, I think you should unsubscribe from ICD's e-mail list. Personally I >>plan to keep getting their "spam". I just hope the next one they send doesn't >>come one day too late. > >It was just a bunch of insults to Frank, something like "get lost if you don't >like it here..", "apologize..". I do not see a reason to reply to that junk. We disagree on the definition of spam. That's ok. I have looked in 4 different dictionaries, and they all have different definitions of spam too. Some of the definitions match your concept of what is spam, some match mine and some define it in a way that is purely subjective, so that what might be spam for you might not be for me. I agree with you that Frank did not deserve the insults he received. I also think Steve did not deserve insults. -R
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.