At 09:09 PM 3/2/99 -0500, Rich Kulawiec said:
>> Um... WHICH community?
>
>The anti-spam community.
Which is composed of large groups of unrelated people with differing
ideas. So we're back to the original statement, I think by Michelle
Dick: "reasonable people disagree on the definition of spam".
>> I consider THE leader in anti-spam efforts to be CAUCE -- the Coalition
>> Against Unsolicited COMMERCIAL Email.
>
>CAUCE's acronym is flawed in the abstract sense
Perhaps, but it's not an UNREASONABLE definition. They're making very
good headway in choking off spam. You sound like a reasonable person
too; you and I and CAUSE all have reasonable positions. Yet we still
disagree. I'm NOT saying you're wrong; I'm saying that Michelle is
right: reasonable people DO disagree. To argue against that point is
to lose sight of the goal: eradication of spam.
I *do* agree that "spamming" to send out a plea for people to look
for a missing little girl is not commercial, but it is still the
wrong thing to do. Should it be *outlawed*? I dunno. Should ads
for "wet hot teens" be forced on me? No; and THAT *should* be
outlawed, just as similar faxes are outlawed. Focussing on the
commercial aspect makes it easier to pass legislation, which I
unfortunately think is necessary. Anyway, it's not worth arguing
whether or not reasonable people disagree on the definition, but
that IS obviously the case here!
(BTW: your belief that individual postings to mailing lists are
copyrighted is correct; the Berne Convention makes the copyright
protections valid across many continents. A specific copyright
NOTICE in the message(s) is NOT required. It wasn't worth a
separate post to say that, but you are indeed right about it.)
+ Randy Cassingham, author of "This is True" * arcie@thisistrue.com +
| http://www.thisistrue.com * autoresponder TrueInfo@thisistrue.com |
+ FIGHT SPAM!! Send blank e-mail to nospam@mailback.com for details +
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
