I had an epiphany about spamming about 1:30 a.m. today, based on both the
list e-mail I've received on the subject and some thoughtful side conversations.

Daniel Dern wants me to make a distinction between spamming via e-mail and
commercialism on the WWW. He says he has no problem with commercialism on
the WWW (since it is something people go to) and a major problem with
commercial (and other "inappropriate" [in his opinion]) newsgroup postings,
which fill up news servers whether anyone reads 'em or not. E-mail spam
bothers him and others because in some cases it comes "postage due," meaning
the receiver ends up paying for the time to download and delete it.

There has been a "call to action," asking us as conscientious list members
to do a couple of things when we are spammed. We are asked to reply to the
spammer and to copy the reply to the postmaster@domainnameofspammer.com.  My
point was that this is not a fight I choose to get into right now -- much
like I have chosen not to lobby for many, many righteous causes or fight
against illiteracy in third world countries.

Two things:

First, using Daniel's logic, spamming to a list-serve would be appropriate,
since a list member is, in effect, "going to" the list much like he/she
would go to a WWW page. If you don't want to be endure the traffic
associated with public lists, don't belong to public lists. I can buy the
distinction between web and Usenet -- he's right, there's a big difference.
But I believe lists fall more closely into the web model of thinking than
the Usenet one.  Likewise, if you post your email address to a web page, it
has become a matter of public record -- just like having a listed phone
number -- and you have to endure the realities of junk mail just like you do
junk phone calls.

Second, I have *absolutely no problem* with net.guardians (as Daniel calls
himself) or net.vigilantes (as I cheerfully call them) fighting the good
fight all they want. What I *do* find amusing and ironic is that the
evangalism that necessarily goes with this fight and IS SPAM ITSELF! Let me
quote a small part of Daniel's post:

>I ... and my fellow net.guardians...
>have been trying to protect Usenet and email from irresponsible and
>inappropriate users of all types, which has included and continues to
>include not only a some business-types but also government personnel,
>religious zealots, random fanatics, newbies, inept programmers, and
>sincere people.  E.g., the steady stream of "Make Money Fast" posts,
>Krazy Kevin Lipsitz, the "GOod Times Virus" junk, the "list of 100
>sites" folks, the 'me too' repliers, the "End of world near" posters,
>the "have you seen my cat" and "send my  birthday email" 
>and chain letters, and Craig Shergolds, and whatnot.

What would be different from me saying I want to protect Usenet and e-mail
from pornography or cat discussions in general? Or from saying I want to
protect the country's estuaries from pollution?  Besides the issues of
censorship (a whole additional ball of wax that I won't get into here but
that is another argument against anti-spamming since it sets the anti's up
as self-appointed cops ...errr... vigilantes... who may draw the line way up
to the side of where I'd draw it or you'd draw it).

What would be wrong with me writing to everyone I can think of and
suggesting they help me in this fight of fights? If someone were to post to
this group saying "Refugees in Bosnia need your aid," Daniel (and most of
the rest of us) would consider it spamming.  My point is that anti-spammers
are cause leaders just like anyone else -- be they commercially crass or
ABSOLUTELY MORALLY CORRECT.

I'm *not* accusing or suggesting that the anti-spammers have resorted to
spam in the traditional sense or sending bulk mail to random spots (I don't
know that they haven't, either, of course).  But good-intentioned or not, if
I apply the anti-spammers' own set of rules, this kind of
net.evangalism.vigilantism.guardianship is a cause that can stay off all
lists that are not directly related to net.administration. Right?

Kristine

Kristine Loosley
kris@cris.com; kris@concentric.net
Public Relations Manager
Concentric Network Corp.
Cupertino, CA
408.342.2808
408.342.2810 (fax)
http://www.concentric.net


------------------------------

End of online-news-digest V1 #509
*********************************


From owner-online-news-digest@marketplace.com Wed Feb  7 19:08:07 1996
Received: from marketplace.com (majordom@marketplace.com [199.45.128.10]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA20691 ; for ; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 19:08:03 -0500