[Asrg] It's not spam, it's ooga-booga... Was: 5c. Message Status

[waltdnes@waltdnes.org]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 01:34:26PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote

> going down the rabbit hole of defining this stuff, I make a hard 
> delineation between:
> 
> 1) spam, which in my mind are those idiots that send stuff fraudulently 
> with forged return addresses and all that other stuff.
> 
> 2) legitimate marketing stuff, where the real issue is a consent issue, 
> not a fraud issue.

  I don't consent to 1) and I don't consent to 2).  I do not see any
difference.


> I think the issues of "solving spam" and "dealing with e-marketing 
> consent issues" are skew. One is shutting down fraudulent operations, 
> the other is regulating legitimate businesses who's practices might or 
> might not be up to snuff. But they tend to get lumped together,

  Waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, it *IS* a
duck.  A pearl of wisdom from "The Rules of Spam"...
Sharp's Corollary: Spammers attempt to re-define "spamming" as that
which they do not do.


> They're separate issues, needing separate solutions. I realize there's 
> a segment that thinks all e-marketing is by definition spam, but the 
> moderate position understands it's not. And no, I'm not excusing badly 
> build e-marketing systems, not at all. but the amount of hassle they 
> cause is nothing compared to the spam that's fraudulently stuffed down 
> out throats every day. And the solutions are different.

  The *ONLY* difference is that the people behind "legitimate marketing
stuff" make campaign contributions, and there's less liklihood of the
"legitimate" spam advertising stuff that's blatantly illegal.  Folks,
it's about *CONSENT* not *CONTENT*.


> Worse, the e-marketing stuff keeps getting dumped onto the same
> bonfire by the "burn witches! more witches!" crowd, which basically
> derails the process from allowing anyone to focus on solving the
> first, major problem.

  It's *ALL* non-consensual e-marketing.  Whether it's a guy in a suit
or a guy in sleazy spamhaus makes no difference.  Fraud-artists at Enron
are really no different from a career criminal kiting cheques.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
An infinite number of monkeys pounding away on keyboards will
eventually produce a report showing that Windows is more secure,
and has a lower TCO, than linux.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg