Unproven Facts And Outright Myths About Spam
from the good-list dept
If you read a lot of news articles about spam (and I do), you hear certain things over and over (and over) again. Rebecca Lieb, over at ClickZ, has put together a top ten list of these things - all of which are unproven or outright myths. My favorite one is the idea that you can define spam. As the article suggests, spam is entirely in the eye of the beholder. End users define spam as "anything they don't want" - and that's exactly what spam is.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
SPAM isn't the problem
"Unsolicited Commercial Email" is the problem, and the media perpetuates it by insisting on calling it SPAM.
Here's a good definition of SPAM: "Anything I don't want." Pretty nebulous, huh? That's why SPAM can't be outlawed. (Hell, my own MOTHER spam's me with useless information I don't want and didn't ask her to send me!)
Unsolicited Commercial Email, however, is very easy to define:
a) I didn't ask you to send me this SPECIFIC information (ergo: its Unsolicited)
b) The communication is designed to elicit the transfer of a good or service either for money, or for free (ergo, it's commercial)
c) I received the communication from you in my emailbox (ergo: it's email!)
UCE can, and should be outlawed. Here's a good law: If Macy's sends me UCE, I should get whatever product they're trying to sell me for free!
That alone would end the REAL problem forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPAM isn't the problem
Yesterday I received an email from a publisher of a well known technology magazine asking me to add a link on Techdirt to their site.
(a) I didn't ask for this specific information.
(b) It was commercial (we're both in business here...)
(c) It was email.
However, it was a legitimate business request, which I did not consider to be spam at all.
Example 2:
A few weeks ago, someone emailed me to say they were starting a new business, and were hoping to talk to me about the possibility of a partnership. It was clear they were a reader of the site and it was a genuine request.
(a) I didn't ask for this. I didn't even know the person.
(b) It was designed to elicit a commercial transfer of services.
(c) It was email.
Again, not spam in my book.
The definitions are hard...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPAM isn't the problem
Example 1 is flawed. You said:
"It was commercial (we're both in business here ...)"
The fact that you are "both in business" does not make his legitimate business request UCE. He's not trying to sell you a good or a service. He's merely asking you for a favor that costs you nothing and in fact, might even enhance your standing in the community.
Example 2 is flawed: You said: "were hoping to talk to me about the possibility of a partnership"
Again, this person is not trying to sell you a good or a service.
Is my definition going to fit EVERY CONCEIVEABLE CIRCUMSTANCE? Of course not, nor should it attempt to.
I'll give you an example: Define "murder." Any definition you propose I can shoot down with unique circumstances you didn't forsee. And yet, murder is against the law. This fact alone does not stop ALL people from killing other people, but it certainly gives the aggrieved parties a forum where an attempt can be made to apply a reasoned definition to the circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPAM isn't the problem
1. unsolicited
AND
2. automated or sent in bulk.
Like Mike pointed out, a lot of unsolicited email is ultimately wanted by the recepient. We don't want to do anything to discourage spontaneous person to person communication. That would kill email. Actually, I sort of got to know Mike by sending him an unsolicted email with my resume enclosed. I guess I'm lucky he didn't throw California's penal code at me in response :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPAM isn't the problem
Besides, I'd argue that the request for a partnership is VERY MUCH a commercial email. Every partnership I've been involved in is, in reality, about selling a good or service.
I agree that definitions can always be debated, but when a fairly significant portion of emails break the definition, it's a problem. In the case of "murder", only a very small number of cases are borderline. That's not the case with your definition of UCE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPAM isn't the problem
Neither is Unsolicited Bulk Email, my preferred replacement for 'spam'.
"UCE" smacks of the ancient "anything commercial doesn't belong on our precious Internet" attitude, ignores the major problem with spam (bulk sending), and leaves a huge gap for things like religious spam, political spam, and time-travel spam, none of which are 'commercial'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPAM isn't the problem
Consider if these mails were sent to 1,000 recipients, would you then consider them to be spam?
I certainly would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPAM isn't the problem
If I could get rid of the scams, I could deal with the Macy's of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
myth #7
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Create Your Own Definition
Since everyone has their own definition of spam, I think the best way to filter e-mail is using a Bayesian filter, which "learns" what you consider to be spam. If you are considering this option, start saving all of your email, including the junk mail, which should go into a separate folder. Then you can use the saved mail to "train" the filter.
I started using a Bayesian filter recently (SpamBayes for Outlook). I had saved all of my e-mail for six months, including 13,000 spam messages. SpamBayes analyzed all of my saved mail to determine what I consider to be good and what I don't want, and now the filtering results are fabulous.
I don't really think that filters will kill spam because there are too many people who don't have the technical know-how needed to set up effective filtering. And actually I think this is good, because if too many people filter out the spam then the spammers will put resources into finding ways to defeat the filters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sender pays
[ link to this | view in chronology ]