[Info-vax] SFF and MIME

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <4b23d911$0$14118$703f8584 at textnews.kpn.nl>, Wilm Boerhout
<w6.boerhout at planet.nl> writes: 

> Phillip Helbig---undress to reply mentioned  on 12-12-2009 18:34:
> > In article <00A95E89.B97DE850 at SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman- 
> > @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: 
> > 
> >>> One man's spam is another man's advertising. 
> > 
> > If it is unsolicited, and it is bulk, then it is spam.  Content doesn't 
> > matter.  (In practice, it might be more useful to filter based on 
> > content; it is not immediately clear if the email in question is bulk or 
> > not.  However, no spammer can justify his spam by saying that the 
> > content must have been of at least passing interest to (some of) the 
> > recipients.  If it is unsolicited, and it is bulk, then it is spam.
> 
> This is an interesting pov. 

Unsolicited is fine: someone might send me an email and ask me a valid
question.  Maybe I know the person personally, maybe not; maybe I've
received email from this person before, maybe not.  Bulk is fine: lots
of mailing lists, newsletters, discussion groups etc operate as bulk
email; there are even news-to-mail gateways.  No problem with bulk email
if I signed up for it.  Of course, some email is neither unsolicited nor
bulk.  It is the combination which is the earmark of spam.  

> Spam only "works" because 0.00001% of a 
> large number of addressees actually "buys" the "product". That is why 
> the sender is willing to pay for the advertising: (s)he makes a profit. 
> If it were unprofitable, it would disappear. Hence, marketing budget.

Right.  However, the flip side of the combination unsolicited + bulk 
means that the rest of the people---99.99999% in your example---are 
annoyed to have received the email.

While spam filtering based on content might be necessary in some cases, 
from the legal point of view unsolicited + bulk = spam is the way to go.
Content is irrelevant.