[Asrg] Definition of spam (was: Re: attention bonds, was Email Postage

[Alessandro Vesely]

Barry Shein wrote:
> Well, I realize there's a lot of emotional investment in this "moral
> hazard" view of spam as "stuff I don't want and/or didn't ask for" but
> I still think a more reasonable definition is bulk email which is
> unpaid for (analogous to postage.)

By your definition this mailing list consists of spam, doesn't it?

I still like better the definition that Rich quoted previously in this 
thread, namely
>>>> The correct definition of spam (in the context of SMTP) is
>>>> "unsolicited bulk email".

I wonder why it isn't mentioned on the ASRG's FAQ.

> I don't particularly care if it was solicited or not. [...]
> It also removes most of the judgement. Who really wants to argue
> whether something is "solicited" or not?

Unsolicited is the key concept. The fact that solicitations are not 
being registered is even more astonishing than the missing definition 
of spam.

> It's a rathole. For example, subsidiaries, partners, etc. Ebay owns
> paypal, so if you told ebay to send you updates does that mean paypal
> can also send you "updates"?
> [...] Is that spam?

What you are talking about is "somewhat abusive mass marketing". It 
may be considered spam, but it bears no false identification and is 
not sent via zombies. Just to note that you cannot impose payments on 
criminal activities.

> I don't really care. I just think if they had to pay for delivery
> maybe they wouldn't pelt me and everyone else daily.

That statement is only correct given the current contingency. At other 
times, mass marketing through paid media, e.g. phone, results in 
intolerantly frequent calls. In general, money is not trustworthy as a 
unit of measure, and it tends to propel crime more often than it 
prevents it.