Unsolicited non-commercial bulk email

[A.J.Mechelynck]

According to http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/14.html, it is, and I agree. But here is what happened to me today:

Got an email with a long list of recipients. The message started "I found your address in a collective message sent to me, so I figured you might be interested". The rest of the message advertised a site, apparently for some nonprofit organization founded by the author of the message, someone I had known some 25 years ago, before either of us even knew what the Internet was going to be.

I wrote to him, telling him "... by that kind of message, you abase yourself to the level of the peddlers of penis-lengthening machines, of medications without prescriptions, of diplomas without exams, of mortgages without credit analysis, etc. etc. etc., who flood the world's e-mailboxes, at the cost of the addressee..." and adding "Don't be surprised if your ISP terminates your contract".

He immediately replied, telling me I was "frankly insulting", that the difference between him and those swindlers was that he didn't get a cent from it, that the Net was "a space of liberty", that he was free to use the adresses on the mail he got in any way he chose, and that there exists free antispam software, or that I could get rid of spam at the click of a mouse -- but that what he sent wasn't spam!

What do you think? How can we convince the general Internet public that spam is not just about crooks and false advertising?

[Miss Betsy]

My definition of spam is unsolicited and unwanted email. It is always rude to send an email to someone from whom you have not gotten consent.

The internet is based on netiquette. And regular etiquette rules pretty much apply to the handling of spam. Bulk email that is unsolicited is not only rude, but is destructive behavior and the mannerly way of dealing with it is to give it the "cut direct" or block it from entering one's space. It has nothing to do with the content or even if it is commercial.

OTOH, an unsolicited email from a long lost cousin may not be unwanted. Or even, as I heard argued once, an email from a friend of neighbor who heard you wanted to buy a lawn mower.

Your acquaintance's email fell somewhere in between. He did not, IIUC, get his addresses from a public list, but from a mutual email (and that brings out another etiquette problem - that of bcc). So, to reach out to "friends" with information about one's passion is not quite the same as emailing strangers. It is rather like the problem of calling before one comes to visit. Some people think that relatives are exempt; others think that especially relatives should call to see if it is convenient.

Myself, I think the best approach is to say that since the advent of spam, all 'unexpected' email is suspect and that it is not wise to email people unless they are expecting an email from you. The reason that it is not wise is that people may simply delete it if they don't recognize it or they may report it as spam. Even if they decide to open it, it still does not put your email in a good light since it "looks" like spam - especially if it is obviously not an individual email to the receiver since bulk email is really, really rude.

He immediately replied, telling me I was "frankly insulting", that the difference between him and those swindlers was that he didn't get a cent from it, that the Net was "a space of liberty", that he was free to use the adresses on the mail he got in any way he chose, and that there exists free antispam software, or that I could get rid of spam at the click of a mouse -- but that what he sent wasn't spam!

My reply would be that I thought the first insult was his because he did not ask if it was convenient for me to receive information about his project. That spam is about conSent, not conTent (and maybe throw in the story about the woman who refuses to go to bed for $5, but would for a million and the punch line is "We've already established what you are, now we are deciding on your price.)

And that you are simply telling him because you are his friend and don't want him to be wasting his time (the ones who will delete) or getting in trouble (the ones who will consider it spam and report).

And as far as anti-spam measures, that blocklists are the natural mechanism for the internet, that filters are bad because they don't notify immediately when there is a problem of mistaken deletion, and that it is ridiculous to have to pay money to receive something you don't want and then pay more money to sort it out and delete it.

Miss Betsy

[tooangry]

My reply would be that I thought the first insult was his because he did not ask if it was convenient for me to receive information about his project.

So he was supposed to send an email to ask about sending an email? Or would you rather that he fax or phone?

You keep going on about ConTent versus ConSent, but that misses something that seems to me a key point. Volume. If I get the occasional message from an old contact that may be semi-commercial, pushing some non-profit cause or informing me of a new job, I don't really care. That sort of thing comes only accasionally and the chance of it actually being of possible interest is there because of a previous link (even if tenuous) with the sender.

It is frankly stupid to lump that sort of message together with providers of cheap Viagra. If the true spam were to disappear (some hope) no one would care about the other unsolicited messages. True spam comprises 99.9% of unwanted messages, so why not concentrate on that?

[A.J.Mechelynck]

Hello, Miss Betsy. Somehow I knew you would have something to say.

[...] Your acquaintance's email fell somewhere in between.  He did not, IIUC, get his addresses from a public list, but from a mutual email (and that brings out another etiquette problem - that of bcc).  So, to reach out to "friends" with information about one's passion is not quite the same as emailing strangers.  It is rather like the problem of calling before one comes to visit.  Some people think that relatives are exempt; others think that especially relatives should call to see if it is convenient. 

From the "To" list, I suspect he got those addresses from the Pugwash newsletter. His website, to which he was clearly trying to attract visitors, is not at all about worldwide disarmament, but "politically incorrect texts, a log list of friends and the links to reach them, a magnificent collection of 'garden dwarfs', and a hairy list of silly quotes".

Myself, I think the best approach is to say that since the advent of spam, all 'unexpected' email is suspect and that it is not wise to email people unless they are expecting an email from you.  The reason that it is not wise is that people may simply delete it if they don't recognize it or they may report it as spam.  Even if they decide to open it, it still does not put your email in a good light since it "looks" like spam - especially if it is obviously not an individual email to the receiver since bulk email is really, really rude.

My email address is placed on my webpage, and friendly comments about it are welcome, whatever their source. But that's no excuse for sending me bulk email or advertisements.

He immediately replied, telling me I was "frankly insulting", that the difference between him and those swindlers was that he didn't get a cent from it, that the Net was "a space of liberty", that he was free to use the adresses on the mail he got in any way he chose, and that there exists free antispam software, or that I could get rid of spam at the click of a mouse -- but that what he sent wasn't spam!

My reply would be that I thought the first insult was his because he did not ask if it was convenient for me to receive information about his project. That spam is about conSent, not conTent (and maybe throw in the story about the woman who refuses to go to bed for $5, but would for a million and the punch line is "We've already established what you are, now we are deciding on your price.)

In this case, though, he would answer "But I'm not getting any money out of it".

But to his jab about the Internet being "a space of liberty" I answered (in a second email) that anyone's liberty stops where other people's liberty starts. If Mormons or Jehovah's Witenesses ring my bell, I have the freedom not to open the door. To avoid postal all-boxes ads, I can affix a "No ads" label to my snailmailbox. And, sure, my ISP offers spam filtering, but I don't know on what criteria and I don't want to lose even a single legit email, so I'm bound to download the chaff with the grain and sort them afterwards.

And that you are simply telling him because you are his friend and don't want him to be wasting his time (the ones who will delete) or getting in trouble (the ones who will consider it spam and report).

I was telling him because (from what I remembered of who he was 25 years ago) I thought he had made an honest mistake and could be made to see the error of his ways. (To the run-of-the-mill chickenbone spamming crook I do not write, of course.) I pointed out that he was using unfair practices and was bound to get into trouble.

And as far as anti-spam measures, that blocklists are the natural mechanism for the internet, that filters are bad because they don't notify immediately when there is a problem of mistaken deletion, and that it is ridiculous to have to pay money to receive something you don't want and then pay more money to sort it out and delete it.

Miss Betsy

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here: to me blocklists and filters are not opposed to one another, they are complementary. I call "blocklist" the list of addresses that exhibit suspect behaviour, and "filter" the software using these blocklists (or other antispam criteria) for whatever purpose (in my case, since I don't want to lose anything legit, I divert rather than reject, and it allows me to report all my spam -- what got through I report quickly to put it on the list, and what got caught I report when I come around to it, to keep it on the list). (NB: I don't filter on content; the only scan I do on email bodies is to find out if there are links to listed addresses.)

[yourbuddy]

spam is UCE "unsolicited commercial email"

Getting an email from a "long lost friend" (even if it was sent to a whole

lot of people) is not necessarily "spam". It it was for raising money for a

charitable cause, then be a bit charitable. If it was that bothersome, then

there are great (free) spam filters (would be a good idea to get anyway).

Suggestions are "POPFile", "K9" and "SpamCombat". All are good, but

"SpamCombat" has a lot of features, including the ability to use DNSbl

(which even includes SpamCop - though SpamCop is too aggressive),

and "whitelists" and "blacklists" and "bayes filtering". Get a copy.

Don't be too reclusive

[A.J.Mechelynck]

My reply would be that I thought the first insult was his because he did not ask if it was convenient for me to receive information about his project.

So he was supposed to send an email to ask about sending an email? Or would you rather that he fax or phone?

You keep going on about ConTent versus ConSent, but that misses something that seems to me a key point. Volume. If I get the occasional message from an old contact that may be semi-commercial, pushing some non-profit cause or informing me of a new job, I don't really care. That sort of thing comes only accasionally and the chance of it actually being of possible interest is there because of a previous link (even if tenuous) with the sender.

It is frankly stupid to lump that sort of message together with providers of cheap Viagra. If the true spam were to disappear (some hope) no one would care about the other unsolicited messages. True spam comprises 99.9% of unwanted messages, so why not concentrate on that?

My point was that spam is not only swindles and crooked schemes. In this case, the Masonic Museum and the Justice Commission for Peace were on the "To" list, that doesn't help make it "a message from a long-lost friend". It was not an individual email (which I would have accepted, if only worded a little differently to show he remembered me). But I get enough junk mail like that, thank you.

Sending an identical email, even advertising a nonprofit association, to many people, is spam. Advertising the same non-commercial site to the same people by as many different, personalized letters, is (I think) not spam. (But it takes longer to produce). [And I mean truly different; not just an identical letter with maybe a different word after "Dear" in the first line.]

[A.J.Mechelynck]

spam is UCE "unsolicited commercial email" 

What about UBE ("unsolicited bulk email")?

Getting an email from a "long lost friend" (even if it was sent to a whole

lot of people) is not necessarily "spam". It it was for raising money for a

charitable cause, then be a bit charitable. If it was that bothersome, then

there are great (free) spam filters (would be a good idea to get anyway).

Suggestions are "POPFile", "K9" and "SpamCombat". All are good, but

"SpamCombat" has a lot of features, including the ability to use DNSbl

(which even includes SpamCop - though SpamCop is too aggressive),

and "whitelists" and "blacklists" and "bayes filtering". Get a copy.

Don't be too reclusive 

About the "long-lost friend", see also my previous post. I tend to believe that the end does not justify the means; IMHO, copying to addresses from a nuclear-disarmament newsletter to draw people to what seems (from the circular email -- I did not visit the advertised site) to be a "fun" site, is not what I regard as honest practices. If he wants to raise funds, let he find a better way to do it.

About spam filters, I use SpamPal, which is highly configurable. I have configured it to use several DNSBLs (including SC), URL-Body (finding URLs in the body), and Auto-whitelisting (whitelisting people to whom I write). OTOH, Bayesian filtering, blacklisting by country, etc. are other available options, but I prefer not to use them. With the settings I have, I get only a few false negatives, and hardly any false positives, which satisfies me.

[yourbuddy]

Spamhaus identifies UBE as spam, and states that:

(1)Bulk means that the message is sent as part of a larger collection of

messages, all having substantively identical content, of which the recipient's

personal identity and context are irrelevant because the message is equally

applicable to many other potential recipients; AND

(2)Unsolicited means that the Recipient has not verifiably granted deliberate,

explicit, and still-revocable permission to receive the message.

A message is defined as spam only if it is both Unsolicited and Bulk.  This

distinction is important because either unsolicited email or bulk email, on

their own, is not classified as spam under this definition.

* Unsolicited Email is not spam (examples include first contact enquiries, job

enquiries, sales enquiries, etc.)

* Bulk Email is not spam (examples include subscriber newsletters, discussion

lists, information lists, etc.).

To be charitable, this does not seem to match the definition of "bulk",

and the email could also be considered "first contact enquiries".

[Miss Betsy]

tooangry

You keep going on about ConTent versus ConSent, but that misses something that seems to me a key point. Volume. If I get the occasional message from an old contact that may be semi-commercial, pushing some non-profit cause or informing me of a new job, I don't really care. That sort of thing comes only accasionally and the chance of it actually being of possible interest is there because of a previous link (even if tenuous) with the sender.

Somewhere there has to be a definitive definition of spam. After reading many long discussions of what spam is, I have decided that unsolicited and unwanted email is rude whether it is one or bulk. Whether one tolerates uncouth behavior or exempts certain people from 'formal' etiquette, is a personal decision. The same is true in offline life. For a relative to drop in unannounced, for some people is rude; for others it is not. Some people will tolerate school children raising money, but not adults. Most people would either not answer the door or say no to most people who are going door to door promoting a religion or a product.

The problem is bulk email. And that is where our concerted effort should go. IMHO, it doesn't matter what the content, bulk email is too rude to tolerate under any circumstances. However, individuals are free to object to friends emailing without permission just as they can object if the same friends drop in unexpectedly.

and yes, he could have emailed the same list and ask them to confirm that they wanted to hear about his project. No reply, just as a commercial confirmation, means don't send any more email that is bulk and promoting his project.

yourbuddy

spam is UCE "unsolicited commercial email" 

That's your opinion. Mine is that spam is any unsolicited email that you decide you do not want. And for reportable unsolicited email, IMHO, it is UBE, unsolicited bulk email.

Getting an email from a "long lost friend" (even if it was sent to a whole

lot of people) is not necessarily "spam". It it was for raising money for a

charitable cause, then be a bit charitable. If it was that bothersome, then

there are great (free) spam filters (would be a good idea to get anyway).

Suggestions are "POPFile", "K9" and "SpamCombat". All are good, but

"SpamCombat" has a lot of features, including the ability to use DNSbl

(which even includes SpamCop - though SpamCop is too aggressive),

and "whitelists" and "blacklists" and "bayes filtering". Get a copy.

One should be able to handle individual emails that are unsolicited and unwanted by either ignoring them or politely stating your position. Bulk email takes community effort to handle. (see tooangry's comment)

spam filters are a waste of time except for businesses who do not want to miss client emails. For businesses, they are a necessary evil. Filters do nothing to stop spam and are expensive ways of dealing with exploitive and greedy people who use bulk email without the least consideration for anyone else.

in reference to the prostitute story

In this case, though, he would answer "But I'm not getting any money out of it".

Accepting no money doesn't change what you are doing, it just makes you cheaper.

Much easier to do this sort of thing in a newsgroup!

Miss Betsy

[A.J.Mechelynck]

Spamhaus identifies UBE as spam, and states that:

[...]

A message is defined as spam only if it is both Unsolicited and Bulk.  This

distinction is important because either unsolicited email or bulk email, on

their own, is not classified as spam under this definition.

To be charitable, this does not seem to match the definition of "bulk",

and the email could also be considered "first contact enquiries".

Well, maybe I reacted a little too quickly to the unusually long list of unrelated addresses in the "To" field. But it definitely was not something I had asked for. One thing that irked me was the idea of cropping adresses from a totally unrelated bulk email (which I had asked for). Maybe I should complain about him to the editor of the Pugwash newsletter (from which I think he copied his addresses), saying this guy is using the Pugwash address list for promoting his own site (not specifically related to promoting world peace)? Hmmmm.

[yourbuddy]

yourbuddy

spam is UCE "unsolicited commercial email" 

That's your opinion. Mine is that spam is any unsolicited email that you decide you do not want. And for reportable unsolicited email, IMHO, it is UBE, unsolicited bulk email.

Miss Betsy ...

It's not just my opinion, it is the opinion of many others as well.

Please see the quote from Spamhaus above, regarding UBE

With your attitude, no one could send you email because you could

decide you did not want it (and then report it as spam, also??)

(Sorry, had to fix the Miss Betsy - had only one "s" in Miss, and

know that "Miss" Betsy would be upset if I "miss"ed it), although

I don't often "Miss" Betsy ...

[yourbuddy]

Well, maybe I reacted a little too quickly to the unusually long list of unrelated addresses in the "To" field. But it definitely was not something I had asked for. One thing that irked me was the idea of cropping adresses from a totally unrelated bulk email (which I had asked for). Maybe I should complain about him to the editor of the Pugwash newsletter (from which I think he copied his addresses), saying this guy is using the Pugwash address list for promoting his own site (not specifically related to promoting world peace)? Hmmmm.

Unauthorized use of another's intellectual property?

Perhaps, but how much do you want to spend on lawyers?

[Merlyn]

yourbuddy

spam is UCE "unsolicited commercial email" 

That's your opinion. Mine is that spam is any unsolicited email that you decide you do not want. And for reportable unsolicited email, IMHO, it is UBE, unsolicited bulk email.

Miss Betsy ...

It's not just my opinion, it is the opinion of many others as well.

Please see the quote from Spamhaus above, regarding UBE

With your attitude, no one could send you email because you could

decide you did not want it (and then report it as spam, also??)

(Sorry, had to fix the Miss Betsy - had only one "s" in Miss, and

know that "Miss" Betsy would be upset if I "miss"ed it), although

I don't often "Miss" Betsy ...

I never thought I would ever agree wity yourbuddy!

What is the world coming to?

[A.J.Mechelynck]

yourbuddy

spam is UCE "unsolicited commercial email" 

That's your opinion. Mine is that spam is any unsolicited email that you decide you do not want. And for reportable unsolicited email, IMHO, it is UBE, unsolicited bulk email.

Mis Betsy ...

It's not just my opinion, it is the opinion of many others as well.

Please see the quote from Spamhaus above, regarding UBE

With your attitude, no one could send you email because you could

decide you did not want it (and then report it as spam, also??)

The "quote from Spamhaus above" said spam was Unsolicited Bulk Email, not just Unsolicited Commercial Email. And it is false that no mail can be sent to staunch spamfighters:

• Anything I have asked for is not spam. For instance, the family newsletter which I receive every weekend (and some 200 other people receive it at the same time). The Linux Weekly News Notes. The vim mailing list. All of those are bulk, but none of them are spam, because I specifically asked for them, and I could stop receiving them if I wanted to.
  
• Non-commercial nonbulk mail is not spam, or at least not reportable spam. It may be rude or unwanted, but that will depend a lot on the wording of the mail, or of any possible previous contacts between the same two people.
  
• Commercial mail is assumed to be bulk until proven otherwise, and even so, there are better ways to advertise.
  

[A.J.Mechelynck]

Well, maybe I reacted a little too quickly to the unusually long list of unrelated addresses in the "To" field. But it definitely was not something I had asked for. One thing that irked me was the idea of cropping adresses from a totally unrelated bulk email (which I had asked for). Maybe I should complain about him to the editor of the Pugwash newsletter (from which I think he copied his addresses), saying this guy is using the Pugwash address list for promoting his own site (not specifically related to promoting world peace)? Hmmmm.

Unauthorized use of another's intellectual property?

Perhaps, but how much do you want to spend on lawyers?

Me? I don't. (And it's not my property, intellectual or otherwise). But maybe the newsletter publisher should know that his address list is being put to unwarranted uses, so that he could (a) start using Bcc rather than Cc, and/or ( remove the offending party from his subscribers' list.

[yourbuddy]

Oh my, and here I thought we were getting somewhere

Commercial email, sent as a first contact (an invitation to do business)

is not "spam" unless it is "bulk" (sent indiscriminately to a bunch of people).

Non-commercial email, sent as a first contact (invitation to "whatever")

is not "spam" unless it is "bulk" (sent indiscriminately to a bunch of people).

No wonder this person forgot you for 25 years

[A.J.Mechelynck]

Oh my, and here I thought we were getting somewhere 

Commercial email, sent as a first contact (an invitation to do business)

is not "spam" unless it is "bulk" (sent indiscriminately to a bunch of people).

Non-commercial email, sent as a first contact (invitation to "whatever")

is not "spam" unless it is "bulk" (sent indiscriminately to a bunch of people).

No wonder this person forgot you for 25 years 

Any advertisement is by definition "an invitation to do business". If I want to do business with some particular shop, I'll go there as a customer, write them a letter, whatever. If I want to do business with some particular kind of shop, I can use Google or the Yellow Pages. I don't need getting all sorts of advertisements for things, 90% of which I'm not going to use.

As I'm not a business myself, I don't get inquiries from potential customers, which are invitations to do business, but aren't spam if they relate to the line of business of the addressee (since they can be regarded as "solicited").

But this thread was about non-commercial bulk. I already said that non-commercial nonbulk wasn't spam (though it can be rude for other reasons).

[Spambo]

According to http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/14.html, it is, and I agree. But here is what happened to me today:

Got an email with a long list of recipients. The message started "I found your address in a collective message sent to me, so I figured you might be interested". The rest of the message advertised a site, apparently for some nonprofit organization founded by the author of the message, someone I had known some 25 years ago, before either of us even knew what the Internet was going to be.

[snip]

"Unsolicited Bulk Email" IS spam, even if it comes from a friend or relative. The only difference is that if it is a friend or relative sending it the LARTs can be delivered personally.

[Please note, I'm not saying that friends & relatives should be reported to their ISP, only that UBE is UBE regardless of who sent it - and "Unsolicited Bulk Email" is the basic definition of "spam".]

[yourbuddy]

Yes, SpamBo ...

But please read the definition of UBE from Spamhaus.

It is not a lot of the things you are talking about.

Your position is just a bit extreme.

[Merlyn]

My definition which is still incomplete.

- Forged e-mail headers

* Forged e-mail headers are when you receive e-mail from somebody[at]somewhere.com but the e-mail was actually sent from somebodyelse[at]somewhrereelse.com

- Hoaxes and Frauds

* 419 (say no more!)

* Warnings about Trojans, viruses, and other malicious code that has no basis in fact. Example: the Good Times and other similar warnings.

Warnings and stories about bad things happening to people and animals that never really happened. These are the poodle in the microwave and needles in movie theater seats variety.

* Stories about give aways by large companies. If you only send this on, some big company will send you a lot of money, clothes, a free vacation, etc.

Out of date warnings and warnings about real things that are not really much of a problem

* Requests for help or sympathy for someone who has had a problem or accident.

Traditional chain letters that threaten bad luck if you do not send them on or that request you to send money to the top n people on the list before sending it on.

Mail that threatens to hurt you, your computer, or someone else if you do not pass on the message.

* Mail messages that appear to be from a legitimate company but that are scams and cons.

* Mail messages that warn you about terrible things that happen to people

- Advertising or promotion of pornographic web sites

The people who do this are nothing but scum!

- Advertising or promoting unsolicited web sites

This type of e-mail speaks for itself.

- Harassment of individuals or groups

This is nothing but hate mail. This would also include anything that damages a person's, organization's or company's reputation.

- Promotion of unsolicited business activities and Products

- Pyramid schemes (including Multilevel Marketing, or MLM)

* Other "Get Rich Quick" or "Make Money Fast" (MMF) schemes

* Offers of software for collecting e-mail addresses and sending UCE

* Offers of bulk e-mailing services for sending UCE

* Stock offerings for unknown startup corporations

* Quack health products and remedies

* Illegally pirated software ("Warez")

[yourbuddy]

Yes, all of the above are obnoxious - but are they all spam.

I like the Spamhaus definition of UCE/UBE - it seems logical.

[Merlyn]

They are spam if I did not ask for them. Not all reportable by Spamcop but I report them manually. I report very few by Spamcop, only the ones I want to have fun with. The rest just get blocked.

On my personal server, spam me once and get blocked, No Problem :-)

[yourbuddy]

They are spam if I did not ask for them.  Not all reportable by Spamcop but I report them manually.  I report very few by Spamcop, only the ones I want to have fun with.  The rest just get blocked.

On my personal server, spam me once and get blocked, No Problem :-)

Cool ... no problem, but please consider that

TV and Radio advertisements are commercial and bulk,

and they may not be appreciated all the time either.

However, we run several large corporations and we receive

and send "first contact" unsolicited email all the time. It's the

business equivalent of a "job application". By your apparent

standards, we'd dump your job application in the garbage.

There is a difference between unsolicited and bulk email, and

a difference between "directed" bulk email and that broadcast

indiscriminately to millions of people it isn't applicable to.

[Merlyn]

I run a few large corporations also. If they send unsolicited (First contact) and it gets reported my pocketbook get $10,000 quick ones!

I have not collected as yet!

[yourbuddy]

I run a few large corporations also. If they send unsolicited (First contact) and it gets reported my pocketbook get $10,000 quick ones!

I have not collected as yet!

Merlyn, you are magic