From: Rich Graves <rich@c2.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 16:14:51 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Spamming (Good or Bad?)
In-Reply-To: <199608210340.UAA06334@adnetsol.adnetsol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GUL.3.95.960820225659.13603C-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Ross Wright wrote:

> On Or About 20 Aug 96, 18:09, Rich Graves wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote:
> > 
> > > I don't know if there has been much discussion on the ethics of
> > > spamming here? Is spamming free speech? 
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > So is mailbombing the motherfucker, or more productively, virtually
> > picketing his ISP until they kick him off for net abuse
> 
> That is the kind of self righteous crap that gives me the creeps!!!

Good. That's called deterrence.* The market decides.

>From your earlier message, though, describing the "spamming" you do, I
really don't see you as needing deterrence. When I hear "spam" I think of
the Jeff Slaton/Vernon Hale/Crazy Kev/John Reese variety of carpet-bombing
both Usenet and millions of email addresses indiscriminately. OTOH, if you
really target your audience well, especially if a human and not a bot is in
charge of selecting prospects, then I'd call that "cold calling,"  not
"spamming." Unsolicited email is moderately annoying, but I don't think it's
anything to complain about. I filter all mail from unknown addresses anyway. 

* - The cool thing about this kind of deterrence is, since you're only
defending virtual turf, you can sabre-rattle to your heart's content without
worrying about having to actually follow through.

-rich