to each his/her own. Keyboard Cowboy wrote: >I hate to step in on these, but I personally believe Don's explanation >is entirely correct. It is also how most of the federal and state >laws regard SPAM, as well as telemarketing calls. There are no courts >that I have ever read about that will prosecute foe emails sent to >people who unknowingly allow/request/opt into mail. >To many people, SPAM is any irritating and unwanted e-mail. Don's >point is that legally it is NOT SPAM, and is quite often "allowed" by >some action the user initiates such as downloading software, buying >products, etc. He's correct.....and so are those people who define >SPAM as any unwanted e-mail. If it's unwanted....we hate getting it ><G> > >While I'm at it....I also believe that most times responding in any >manner to SPAM (using the definition - unwanted e-mails) will not do >any good. I especially think that SPAM programs that bounce mail, >etc., are actually worse than the SPAM itself. Think of it this way >-- if it's truly SPAM (sent out by the hundreds of thousands through >illegal means) then the sender will certainly not respond, or care at >all if you bounce a e-mail. What you do by bouncing or sending >threatening letters and such is DOUBLE the amount of useless e-mails >handled by the internet.......you are simply adding to the problem. > > > Regards from > > Bob -- the "Keyboard Cowboy", > ,,,,,,,, > Ô¿Ô¬ > Cincinnati, Ohio > Scottsdale, Arizona > ==========<[0]>=========== > Saturday 10/1/2005 6:55:33 PM > > I believe with all my heart that civilization has produced nothing >finer than a man or woman who thinks and practices true tolerance. > > -- Frank Knox > > >==========<[O]>========== >On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 19:05:44 +1200, DH Holmes wrote: > | Semantics, Don. I really don't care whether you want to have > | your own 'definition' of spam, you are welcome, but as far as I > | am concerned it is not mine, nor most peoples. I suggest you > | canvas your friends and take further opinion. Spam, in two > | dictionaries that I have referred to is exactly what I said. > | There is no reference to having asked for it. Either by accident, > | unintent, or by any other means. Spam by definition is unwanted > | email, and some does invite response. > | > | Cheers, > | > | Rick H > | > | > | Don wrote: > | | Please go back and re-read what I wrote. I did not say that > | | what you call spam is not spam. I said a lot of what you > | | probably call spam is not spam. There is a BIG difference in > | | the meanings of those words. > | | > | | A lot of the junk email many people get is NOT spam, simply > | | because they ASKED for it or opted into it by way of > | | registering for a website or service. Because they ASKED > | | for it, it is NOT SPAM. By definition SPAM is UNSOLICITED. > | | > | | IF this is not the case in your situation, then I take great > | | relief in my use of the word PROBABLY. > | | > | > | -- > | <Please delete this line and everything below.> > | > | To unsub or change your email settings: > | //www.freelists.org/webpage/pctechtalk > | > | To access our Archives: > | http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PCTechTalk/messages/ > | //www.freelists.org/archives/pctechtalk/ > > > >-- ><Please delete this line and everything below.> > >To unsub or change your email settings: >//www.freelists.org/webpage/pctechtalk > >To access our Archives: >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PCTechTalk/messages/ >//www.freelists.org/archives/pctechtalk/ > > > > > -- Roy Hanson Technical Support for Eco-Toner Systems, Inc. c/o Mail Boxes Etc. 509 Commissioners Road West London, ONtario N6J 1Y5 Office/Production: 3392 Wonderland Road South, Bldg. #8 London, Ontario N6L 1A8 email: printerman@xxxxxx www.ecotonersystems.com 519 6526233 -- <Please delete this line and everything below.> To unsub or change your email settings: //www.freelists.org/webpage/pctechtalk To access our Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PCTechTalk/messages/ //www.freelists.org/archives/pctechtalk/