| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
>
> I have spoken with Helge in several e-mails since this happened, and he seems
> very contrite about the whole ordeal. With that, I'd like to remove my
> complaint against him and apologize for what I said about him and his business
> practices.
A happy ending for this episode, hopefully.
I have been reading this thread as-it-happened (I get b-s-t via email) and one
thing puzzles me about the whole affair. No one went on record to explain why
the original email from Helge was, could, or should be considered or classified
as SPAM.
From my perspective, the use of the word SPAM [1] to define the offending email
is inappropriate. It can be assumed that the only recipients were known Lego
enthusiasts that may have had an interest in the items being offered. While
each recipient of the email was not known to Helge, they received the email
with the assumption that they would have interest.
Thus, since the sender assumed that the recipient would have interest removes
the idea that it be considered SPAM. As far as I define SPAM email. [2]
If SPAM email is defined this way, then a large portion of the email I receive
would fall into this category . Just because I receive unsolicited email does
not make it SPAM. I have some family members and co-workers that send me stuff
I do not want, for example, -- that does not make it SPAM, it simply makes it
trash or junk mail.
This whole thing could have easily been a non-event had the offending email
simply been deleted by receipients who do not have interest in the offered
items.
[1] I also do not define auction flogs as SPAM, as does Todd Lehman
[2] My personal definition of SPAM email may not be the same as other people's
or that defined by a dictionary, etc. However, I do not wish to debate or
belabor this issue.
__Kevin Salm__
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: No more spam from Helge Viker
|
| Kevin Salm wrote: <snip> (...) Unsolicited mass email *is* the definition of spam. (...) Nope. You cannot make this assumption. By your definition, I should be able to spam everyone on earth with my new money-making scheme because I assume that (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
32 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
