🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3517dc2d.280948103@news.ilos.net>,
Arthur D. Mira <admiral@ilos.net> wrote:
>In can.infohighway, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) wrote:

>=>Obviously you've never tried to do this.

>Granted Chris, but seeing as the issue seems to have garnered your
>attention

[I'm not sure whether to feel honoured or otherwise that you lend so
much significance to whether I'm paying attention to you or not.  I
seldom look in can.infohighway.  Except in cross-posted threads
that involves something of significant importance to my employer.]

>I want to get back to the issue that raised my hackles.

Your point seems to be that "filtering is the answer to spam".
That answer is wrong, regardless of what particular definition
you want to apply to the word "spam".

>That was my original contention that the term 'spam' seems to have
>become a generic four letter word for *everything* that admins and
>users find distasteful about the internet as well as a number of
>related issues.

Well, yes, that's true.  But, "common usage" is what dictates the
meanings of words.  What a few technical wonks _think_ it means
is essentially irrelevant.  Spam has become, more or less, a term
for "EMP/ECP" on Usenet and "UCE/UBE" on Email.  Some people use the
words even more liberally, but that's their problem.

People aren't using the term "spam" in this discussion to refer to
a single piece of email that they didn't like (vis the examples
of crashed servers), hence your counterposition is incorrect even
on that basis.

The term "spam" in computer jargon predates Canter and Siegal, and
doesn't refer to EMP (or network abuse of any kind) _at_all_.  You
might as well complain that "spam" isn't being used as the same
sense as it originally was (see Raymond's Jargon file), having nothing
to do with what we now think is spam.

Indeed, you might as well complain that Raymond's Jargon file has
it wrong too, because it doesn't refer to Vikings and breakfast
menus.

>In 'usenet/netnews' terminology the term 'spam' carries a specific
>and defined meaning.

Actually not.  Even the most intimately familiar with net-abuse
are now using "spam" to refer to velveeta (ECP) and jello (combined
EMP/ECP).

Forcing people to start using velveeta and jello again would be a great
disservice.  And open people up to a few more lawsuits... ;-)  Furthermore,
you'd have to stop them from using "spam" too, because even your
"precise and technical" EMP definition usurps the previous history
of repeated [re-]definitions.

Yeah, I know all of the jargon, all of the various meanings, and who
means what when they use them.

Hair-splitting like this only matters in a courtroom or legislative body.

That's why I wrote the "Usenet Spam thresholds faq", and said, paraphrased,
"hair splitting what spam, jello, velveeta and all of the other varieties
is is pointless and silly.  Most people don't understand the technical
descriptions when they read them anyways.  Just call all EMP/ECP etc.
"spam" [and I could have also said UCE/UBE], and people will generally
know what you're talking about".

The word "spam" is slang.  It evolves like all other slang does.  People
use slang the way they always do.  Any old way they feel like.
That's what slang _is_.

Worry about the precise definition when they use the word "spam" in
a law, relying on general public perceptions of what "spam" means.

Here's a hint: they won't _ever_ do that.
-- 
The rumours of my demise are greatly exaggerated.

Support the anti-Spam amendment.  Join at http://www.cauce.org/
Anti-spam resources: http://spam.abuse.net