What exactly is the definition of spam???
Kat Wylde
Hi All,
I have a dumb question for you...What exactly is spam? I recognize that it
is the sending of unsolicited mail...that much is obvious...my question is,
Why is everyone so angry about it? (And before you get the false impression
that I am a spammer, think again...I am a self-employed writer...no need to
spam) What I mean is...I understand when people get annoyed with junk mail
in their snail-mail box. It has certain environmental issues associated
with it. What I do not understand, is why people get so angry with
receiving junk e-mail. I receive a great deal of it, but I choose not to
waste my time reading it...I simply delete it...end of annoyance. No paper
is wasted, no animal cruelty, no wasted time.
I compare the net to reading my local newspaper...there is a lot of
advertising that is irrelevant to me in the paper (sometimes, these
advertisers dare place their ads right next to an interesting article I
want to read!) Do I have the right to tell the local newspaper that they
cannot place these ads? No...I have the right to not read it...Perhaps I am
just silly in my firm belief in freedom of speech. BTW, I really don't mean
to sound sarcastic...it is not really intentional...I just think that
people spend so much time and energy being angry with one another. I really
believe that everyone has the right to try and do business. This is a dog
eat dog world, and the internet has provided people with an inexpensive
alternative to the typical forms of advertising. In our current economy, I
sympathize with those who want to make money. Who doesn't want to make
money? Everyone has the right to advertise...and everyone has the right to
not read that advertisement.
I know I will probably get a lot of people angry with me...and I sincerely
hope that you don't hate me too much...I am just curious why everyone is so
mad?
You have the right to ignore this message...You also have the right to
respond if you wish...making choices is what we do as humans...and I
reserve the right to my freedom of speech...thank you for reading this...it
is simply a question that maybe someone can answer for me...
The following is my actual e-mail address if you would like to respond
Wm James
On 17 Apr 1998 03:06:41 GMT, "Kat Wylde" <katw...@echelon.ca> wrote:
)>Hi All,
)>
)>I have a dumb question for you...What exactly is spam? I recognize that it
)>is the sending of unsolicited mail...that much is obvious...my question
is,
)>Why is everyone so angry about it? (And before you get the false
impression
)>that I am a spammer, think again...I am a self-employed writer...no need
to
)>spam) What I mean is...I understand when people get annoyed with junk mail
)>in their snail-mail box. It has certain environmental issues associated
)>with it. What I do not understand, is why people get so angry with
)>receiving junk e-mail. I receive a great deal of it, but I choose not to
)>waste my time reading it...I simply delete it...end of annoyance. No paper
)>is wasted, no animal cruelty, no wasted time.
We like animal abuse. And as members of the lumber cartel we oppose any
communication that doesn't waste paper.
Is that what you wanted to hear, Mr Troll?
William R. James
Kat Wylde
Well, I was kind of hoping for a more intellectual response, but I do
appreciate your input. <smiling, and appreciative of the sarcastic humor
you chose to employ) I thought I had presented an intelligent
question...apparently not...
Honestly, my intention was to ask a logical question...I have heard so much
about the spam issue, but I never understood the vehemence raised by this
apparently uncontrollable problem. I posted here, hoping to find an answer
to my question...not to make everyone angry...I apologize if I offended
anyone...I will avoid posting here again.
p.s....I am female, so the appropriate terminology would have been Ms.
Troll <LOL>
Katarina S. Wylde
katw...@echelon.ca
Wm James <sp...@here.not> wrote in article
<354df94e...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>...
Wm James
On 17 Apr 1998 07:20:58 GMT, "Kat Wylde" <katw...@echelon.ca> wrote:
)>Well, I was kind of hoping for a more intellectual response, but I do
)>appreciate your input. <smiling, and appreciative of the sarcastic humor
)>you chose to employ) I thought I had presented an intelligent
)>question...apparently not...
)>
)>Honestly, my intention was to ask a logical question...I have heard so
much
)>about the spam issue, but I never understood the vehemence raised by this
)>apparently uncontrollable problem. I posted here, hoping to find an answer
)>to my question...not to make everyone angry...I apologize if I offended
)>anyone...I will avoid posting here again.
)>
)>p.s....I am female, so the appropriate terminology would have been Ms.
)>Troll <LOL>
)>
)>Katarina S. Wylde
)>katw...@echelon.ca
OK I'll bite.
I was prepared to be a little more explanatory, but when to mentioned the
'save the trees' argument, the flags went up. It's a very common
non-argument used by spammers to try and rationalize stealing.
It definitely makes you appear as a spammer-troll.
One argument that has never been addressed by spammers is the auto
notfication function of mail readers. When I'm working on line, I only want
to be interupted by people who I expect mail from. Junk postal mail doesn't
interupt me to run to the mail box every 5 minutes.
Also, my time, hard drive and account are things that I pay for. They are
not the property of some thief that wan't to put his ads in my way.
It's much like painting billboards on the side of your house and car every
day.
If you are seriously curious and not a spamming troll I would suggest that
you watch the terms. :)
William R. James
William R. James
Kat Wylde
Hello again William!
In between my last post and now, I did receive some interesting
information, directly to my mailbox, from those who provided me with the
information I was requesting. I must say, it was enlightening. I am fairly
new to the internet, and was simply curious. You brought up another point
that had not been mentioned previously, which was the automatic
notification issue. I had not thought of that, for a couple of reasons...1.
I am not privileged to have a sound card on my computer, so I would not be
bothered by an annoying sound every time I have new mail...2. I have chosen
not to utilize my auto notification option...so, to make a long story just
a bit longer <smiles> I had not given thought to the "nuisance factor" of
constantly checking every time the computer beeps.
I want to say publicly that I very much appreciate those who took my
question seriously, and answered my questions without anger or malice.
Those of us who communicate with respect and kindness in everything we do,
appreciate it when treated in kind.
William, I am definitely unaware of the "terms" and "flagwords" used by
anyone. In referring to the environmental issue, I was referring to a
variety of news issues about three and four years ago, when
environmentalists were up in arms about junk mail. I was not aware of any
arguments used by "spammers' as I only recently began "surfing the web" for
the purposes of researching the book I am writing. I have never used the
computer for business purposes (unless you consider typing my book to be a
business use, which I do) and have no reason to sell anything via the net.
Also, when you called me a troll, I thought you had invented a new variety
of insulting terms. I did not know that the term is used for spammers,
otherwise I would not have stated that the appropriate term was Ms. troll.
<LOL> (By the way, did you notice that I refused to be insulting in turn? I
am kind to everyone, even when they behave nastily with me...)
Again, thank you to everyone who responded to my question. I still have not
converted to the belief that two wrongs make a right, however, I do
sympathize with everyone's frustration. I wish you all the best of luck in
your struggles. I have learned a valuable lesson about voicing my mind on
the internet...I think I will go back to writing...it is much more
peaceful...<LOL>
Wm James
On 18 Apr 1998 06:00:58 GMT, "Kat Wylde" <katw...@echelon.ca> wrote:
)>Hello again William!
)>
)>In between my last post and now, I did receive some interesting
)>information, directly to my mailbox, from those who provided me with the
)>information I was requesting. I must say, it was enlightening. I am fairly
)>new to the internet, and was simply curious. You brought up another point
)>that had not been mentioned previously, which was the automatic
)>notification issue. I had not thought of that, for a couple of
reasons...1.
)>I am not privileged to have a sound card on my computer, so I would not be
)>bothered by an annoying sound every time I have new mail...2. I have
chosen
)>not to utilize my auto notification option...so, to make a long story just
)>a bit longer <smiles> I had not given thought to the "nuisance factor" of
)>constantly checking every time the computer beeps.
)>
)>I want to say publicly that I very much appreciate those who took my
)>question seriously, and answered my questions without anger or malice.
)>Those of us who communicate with respect and kindness in everything we do,
)>appreciate it when treated in kind.
)>
)>William, I am definitely unaware of the "terms" and "flagwords" used by
)>anyone. In referring to the environmental issue, I was referring to a
)>variety of news issues about three and four years ago, when
)>environmentalists were up in arms about junk mail. I was not aware of any
)>arguments used by "spammers' as I only recently began "surfing the web"
for
)>the purposes of researching the book I am writing. I have never used the
)>computer for business purposes (unless you consider typing my book to be a
)>business use, which I do) and have no reason to sell anything via the net.
)>Also, when you called me a troll, I thought you had invented a new variety
)>of insulting terms. I did not know that the term is used for spammers,
)>otherwise I would not have stated that the appropriate term was Ms. troll.
)><LOL> (By the way, did you notice that I refused to be insulting in turn?
I
)>am kind to everyone, even when they behave nastily with me...)
)>
)>Again, thank you to everyone who responded to my question. I still have
not
)>converted to the belief that two wrongs make a right, however, I do
)>sympathize with everyone's frustration. I wish you all the best of luck in
)>your struggles. I have learned a valuable lesson about voicing my mind on
)>the internet...I think I will go back to writing...it is much more
)>peaceful...<LOL>
OK. Sorry if I misjudged you. Those in these groups will tell you that
that you sounded a lot like many of the spammers that come trolling here.
The "wasted paper" argument is fairly common. In fact there has even been a
myth circulated about a "lumber cartel" who's supposed to be paying all the
antispammers to protect their paper interests.
The most serious flaw in the argument is that people use their printers.
Remember the "paperless office" that was supposed to be the norm by the
ninties? Computers, printers, scanners, and faxes have created far more
paper use that ever before. How many spammers give a fax number? Go to my
page for a recent list of their fax numbers. Fax them a complaint even!
Again, sorry for jumping to conclusions. Perhaps I'm a bit over zelous on
occasion.
William R. James
Here's the page. Spammers names addresses, phone numbers, and fax numbers.
Even some ideas for fighting back.
http://members.tripod.com/~antispammers/pool.html
edward
In article <353a7c61...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>, Wm James
<sp...@here.not> writes
discussion of the issue of spam on this newsgroup? well i guess it had
to happen sometime.... :-)
I have been watching things in here for a while, not wishing to appear
to ignorant in any comments i might make, and i had unfortunately almost
reached the point where i considered most of the people involved in the
anti-spamming field to be almost as anti people-who-didn't-know-very-
much as they were anti-spammist.
I originally came to this newsgroup when recommended by a very reputable
magazine here in the UK.
Whilst the contributors were understandably irritated to the n'th degree
by spam, the bile and paranoia i have seen displayed has somewhat
disheartened me when i consider the possiblities of finding a lasting
solution to the problem. How many people with a genuine desire to
contribute to the discussion have been scared off by the acid responses
to simple questions or opinion that didn't agree 110 % with those who
regularly inhabit this newsgroup? How many more have despaired at any
hope of promoting a solution to industry and government when faced with
the almost childish (yes, i know it sounds patronising and prudish)
reactions of the very people who probably know more about the subject
than any others.
Like i said, I am encouraged by Williams responses.
Dare i hope again?
p.s. (good luck KAty)
--
Edward the Bear :-)
Wm James
)>Do i detect the beginnings of a sensible non-abusive, non-patronising
)>discussion of the issue of spam on this newsgroup? well i guess it had
)>to happen sometime.... :-)
Disgusting, isn't it? :)
)>I have been watching things in here for a while, not wishing to appear
)>to ignorant in any comments i might make, and i had unfortunately almost
)>reached the point where i considered most of the people involved in the
)>anti-spamming field to be almost as anti people-who-didn't-know-very-
)>much as they were anti-spammist.
)>
)>I originally came to this newsgroup when recommended by a very reputable
)>magazine here in the UK.
)>
)>Whilst the contributors were understandably irritated to the n'th degree
)>by spam, the bile and paranoia i have seen displayed has somewhat
)>disheartened me when i consider the possiblities of finding a lasting
)>solution to the problem. How many people with a genuine desire to
)>contribute to the discussion have been scared off by the acid responses
)>to simple questions or opinion that didn't agree 110 % with those who
)>regularly inhabit this newsgroup? How many more have despaired at any
)>hope of promoting a solution to industry and government when faced with
)>the almost childish (yes, i know it sounds patronising and prudish)
)>reactions of the very people who probably know more about the subject
)>than any others.
)>
)>Like i said, I am encouraged by Williams responses.
)>
)>Dare i hope again?
)>
)>p.s. (good luck KAty)
You are correct, I think. The paranoia in the antispam groups is somewhat
understandable when you take into account the adversaries. We are, after
all dealing with people who make their living stealing, lying, and conning
folks. It's pretty common to find them here either pretending to be a
newbie who doesn't see anything wrong with spamming, a user who actually
finds value in spam, or even an antispammer so that he can get addresses.
One site was actually set up as an antispammer site with a form for
"joining" apparently to collect antispammers' addresses presumably for
attacks.
We occasionally jump the gun, I suppose when a real newbie asks legit
questions that look remotely suspicious.
William R. James