Penguinshit's Journal: What is true spam?

this is my first attempt at a journal.. I'd been meaning to start one, or a blog, but in these days of working 3 jobs in a frantic attempt to stay in the computer industry, I haven't had much time.. anyway:

What is spam?

I recently had an argument with someone, splitting hairs over what we considered true spam.

I considered true spam to be one of no redeeming value (typified by offers to enlarge one's penis, etc.) which typically comes in mass quantities and with no attempt at qualifying the recipient outside of being a "live" address, whereas unsolicited commercial email from a legitimate company would typically be from a highly scrubbed list of addresses, would appear only once, and, based on my demographic, be one which could very reasonably interest me.

My opponent took the view that *any* unsolicited commercial email was spam.

I feel that both views are right, but that in the interest of E-Commerce I'm willing to let the legitimate companies send me what would amount to 3 or 4 honest advertisements per week (similar to what I see in my snailmailbox, and similar to what I used to receive in email prior to approximately 1997).

The trick is, how to define "legitimate" and in such a way that it is difficult for the "penis enlarger" crowd to pervert the regulation.

I certainly don't have the answer, so if anyone is listening and would like to posit, go for it.

Go back to the origins of the word.

[Morosoph]

From The SPAM Sketch: [ironworks.com]

Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg, sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg, bacon and spam; egg, bacon, sausage and spam; spam, bacon, sausage and spam; spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam; spam, sausage, spam, spam, spam, bacon, spam, tomato and spam; spam, spam, spam, egg and spam; (Vikings start singing in background) spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam, spam and spam.

SPAM just floods in. Four or five would be spam, spam, spam, spam, not spam,

Re:Go back to the origins of the word.

[Morosoph]

More seriously, I think that targetting is pretty key. If the company could reasonably expect that for any given recipient, there would be a good chance that they were interested, it might be junk, but it's not SPAM.

Note my italicised for any given recipient; that a company would expect a reasonable response rate would not be enough.

I think that this criterian is sufficiently straightforward that it could be applied in court, and case law would soon give a percentage likelyhood that would be considered

Re:Go back to the origins of the word.

[Penguinshit]

Where's Bun-Bun when we need him...