Re: More on spam
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 01:58:31PM -0400, Dave Harding wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 11:37:05AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> > One addition to Karsten's questions/issues:
> > It has been claimed that one person's spam is another person's ham. To
> > what extent is this actually true? Or is this just obfuscation by the
> > advocates of spam? If we had collections of ham and spam that have
> > been accumulated by different users with different filter set ups, we
> > could look for overlap and disjointness of sets. Or just run one
> > person's spam thru another person's filter. Lots of opportunities for
> > useful statistical studies.
> I think insofar that spam == unsolicited commercial email; the
> definitions are pretty clear.
I think a more precise definition might be "unsolicited commercial or
organizational email from a source in which I have no interest."
If I respect an organization, I'll read what it sends me. The problem
is too many organizations think they deserve my respect.