On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 01:58:31PM -0400, Dave Harding wrote: > On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 11:37:05AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: > > One addition to Karsten's questions/issues: > > It has been claimed that one person's spam is another person's ham. To > > what extent is this actually true? Or is this just obfuscation by the > > advocates of spam? If we had collections of ham and spam that have > > been accumulated by different users with different filter set ups, we > > could look for overlap and disjointness of sets. Or just run one > > person's spam thru another person's filter. Lots of opportunities for > > useful statistical studies. > > I think insofar that spam == unsolicited commercial email; the > definitions are pretty clear. >
I think a more precise definition might be "unsolicited commercial or organizational email from a source in which I have no interest." If I respect an organization, I'll read what it sends me. The problem is too many organizations think they deserve my respect. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
