 |
|
|
|
01/29/02
Spam: Friend or Foe?
by Jennifer Trewitt
I was planning on starting this article with a legal definition of spam, or at least a widely accepted common definition of spam. However, after uncounted hours of internet research, I have come to the conclusion that no such animal exists. So what I do have to offer is my best effort at distilling all the definitions I found.
The unofficial spam definition:
Any email which:
1. Is sent to a person or organization that has not requested it or given their permission for the sender to send them information.
AND/OR
2. Is impersonal or un-targeted enough that the recipient is unimportant (an email selling custom detailing for only 1978 Corvettes sent to someone who owns a 1978 Corvette could be considered personal or targeted).
AND/OR
3. Has a false or misleading subject line or return address.
AND/OR
4. Does not include information on how to avoid getting future emails from the sender.
Clearly the definition of spam is highly subjective at best, which only reinforces my opinion – maybe spam isn't so bad after all.
I know, I know, it's irritating to have to delete however many emails out of your box every day. It's even more irritating when you accidentally click on one and have to wait for the HTML to load. In fact, most of the email I get is irritating – including lists I subscribe to and multiple forwarded jokes from my coworkers and family. So why is spam the bad guy?
Let me make my case.
First, I am perfectly capable of deleting all these email messages. I'm going to be deleting emails anyway, whether any of them are spam or not. The amount of time spent in deleting is negligible.
Second, I know there are valid concerns about mass emailings slowing down connections and using too much bandwidth, but I don't believe rules or laws against spam will solve this problem. If spam is outlawed, only outlaws will send spam – and I get more spam now than I ever did.
Third, the people who send spam want to reach me. I don't want them using up trees to fill my mailbox with flyers that I then have to pay to throw away. And no-one will convince me that mass mailings are more targeted – half the flyers I get are for siding or windows or home equity loans, and I rent.
Fourth, I really really don't want the spam senders to start calling me. I get enough telemarketing phone calls from people who have a right to have me on their lists (like my credit card company). I don't need more. And it's far more expensive for me to check and delete a late hang up voice mail than an unwanted email.
Fifth, and possibly most important, I want the option of receiving valid offers through email, especially through my work email. If someone wants to sell me a better scanner or offer me free shipping on my next monitor purchase, I don't have a problem with that. It might be useful. I joined my favorite discussion list after receiving a spam from them (back in the days before it became a bad word). Also, I myself might want to send an unsolicited email looking for a business contact – for example, if a client needed specialized Search Optimization work done in Chinese for a Chinese Search Engine.
Given all these points, I find it somewhat hard to understand the recent spam outcry, and even harder to understand potential spam legislation. I believe that unsolicited email is less troublesome than any other form of unsolicited contact. And even if one doesn't agree with that statement, spam restrictions are not going to help. Perhaps we all should have the option of having unlisted email (like unlisted phone numbers) – but we'll still have address numbers on our houses, won't we?
If you're interested in any of my spam definition research findings, you can start by following these links:
http://mail-abuse.org/standard.html
http://www.adgrafix.com/spam.html
http://www.wa.gov/ago/releases/rel_spam_060701.html
http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/statutes/email/inbox1.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
