Tim and all, Tim Kehres wrote: > From: "Vernon Schryver" <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com> > > > > With respect to the second above issue - I am very aware of what > happend - > > > some of our people sent single directed messages (unsolicited) to > parties > > > they thought might be interested in what we do. They were single, short > > > messages, sent from real people on a one on one basis. They were sent > with > > > valid headers, through our servers, and only one short message was ever > sent > > > to anyone. We don't deal with unsolicited bulk advertising. > > > > > > I just have not had the time or energies as of late to set the records > > > straight. > > > > The "straight record" of the messages archived by Google is that they were > > unsolicited, more than one and substantially identical, and therefore > > "spam" or "UBE" by the definition held my most informed people. > > They were indeed mostly identical, as is common when trying to make initial > contact with new groups of people. They were however never sent more than > once to a specific individual, regardless of wether or not the recipient > replied. You make a key point that it seems Vernon neglected to mention in his response above. > > > > In addition, because promoted or advocated a commercial product, they > > were "UCE" or spam by the second most common definition. > > Are you suggesting that if the content were different, say promoting a > personal sex site, that they would have been acceptable? Somehow I suspect > that this is an ineffective metric by which to measure content. I would also have to wonder by Vernon's stated second most common definition, whatever that really means, would apply to IETF, ISOC, Church affiliations, ICANN or other non-commercial and charitable orgs send out that I receive from time to time are also UCE? I think not. > > > > The motives claimed by the senders are irrelevant. Whether the > > unsolicited bulk mail is sent one at a time or with a single SMTP > > transaction is irrelevant. Whether the headers are valid or you steal > > service from third parties instead of only your spam targets is also > > irrelevant. I and most informed people think that the contents of > > the messages are irrelevant except to determine whether they are > > substantially identical. > > The behavour that bulk emailers exhibit is substiantly different from > happened in this case. I've outlined in detail what our people had done - > if you look at the bulk mailers and their practices it is not difficult to > determine many key differences. In fact if you look at the various forms > of legislation around the world, including in the US at the moment, they > take into consideration issues pertaining to the authenticity of the > messages (forged headers), theft of service (unauthorized use of third party > systems) and similar issues. Going by memory, some also take into > consideration the harassment factor, or how many times a single message is > bombarded against an unsuspecting individual, however sadly, from what I can > read, the current proposed US federal legislation into this does not go this > far. In short the legislation is trying to go after the bulk mailers > without killing the Internet as a medium for electronic commerce. This is my understanding as well. Perhaps than Vernon is suggesting that such legislation does not go far enough, and is advocating a form of censorship? > > > One common thread of all the legislation that I've been able to get > reference to is the preservation of the right to be able to responsibly use > the Internet for business purposes. Please don't think that I'm trying to > make a case for the mass mailers here - I am not. Under your model, it > would be improper (or even illegal) for an individual or organization of any > type to make first contact via email - regardless of how it is being done, > and for what purpose. This is what I disagree with - there should be > reasonable ways in which people / organizations can continue to use this > medium to establish communications. Very much agreed! > > > If we shut down our ability to expand our horizions by shutting out all but > our established friends and business associates, the Internet will become a > very boring place to live in. Yes something like a "Friend of the IETF" social club or garden club... > Somehow a proper balance has to be > established, which should start with a solid and unchanging definition of > what spam is. I've heard your definition of spam, and countless others over > the years (I've even participated in some of the anti-spam groups a while > back), and the only consistent thread of all this was that nobody could > agree on the most basic issue of a commn definition. It's hard to make > much real progress in this area when you're going after a moving target. > And yes, the definition of what spam is, really *is* a moving target, > regardless of how firmly any of us believe in our own particular > interpretations. > > I believe that this is an important issue that needs to be discussed, > however I also suspect that it is not in the context of the charter of > either of these lists. As I stated in an earlier message in this thread, > if anyone can point this off to a more appropriate forum, I'll be happy to > shift my replies there. It seems to me this is a good a forum as any, and likely needs to be discussed here specifically given the range of responses thus far... > > > Best Regards, > > -- Tim Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208