On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 08:46:09AM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 09:26:02PM -0800, John Payne wrote:
I am trying to be good :) If you change one word in your definition... you cover the "small potential problem" (which has been seen already) without losing anything.
Unsolicited Bulk E-mail.
I'm not sure I like the use of the word bulk. The reason is that it is not precise. Is 10 bulk? 50? Is it only bulk if I use a "spam tool"?
Bulk is more than 1 copy. How do I know if something is bulk? A simple test. Is this something that could have been sent to someone else with either no modification, or a trivial "mailmerge" operation. It then becomes up to the spammer to prove otherwise to his abuse desk, who will probably have received multiple complaints anyway.
Unsolicited, Commercial, and E-mail all have precise definitions. particularly if we're going to get something (eventually) into a useful law I think we need to make sure it is entirely defined of precise terms.
Sure... but focusing on commercial is dangerous.
You do cite a good example of my "small potential problem". Nothing immediately comes to mind as a good way to catch it without causing good things to get caught up as well. I'm going to think about it.
My feelings are if its unsolicited and bulk, then it ain't good. SPAM-L is one mailbox over that way ----> -- John Payne http://sackheads.org/jpayne/ john@sackheads.org http://sackheads.org/uce/ Fax: +44 870 0547954 To send me mail, use the address in the From: header