Tim May wrote:
Ray has widened his definition of "spam" even more.
No, my definition is the same as it always was. Maybe you didn't realize how wide it was.
You've mentioned that spam is theft. If the courts agree with you on your definition of what spam is, then pretty clearly the legal system gets invoked. (But to forestall any confusions in the courts, the anti-spam sentiment being discussed by Ray and many others is likely to lead to specific legislation. Sadly.)
It is my definition, if others agree, that's their business. I'm not asking the courts to do shit about it however.
"Theft." Call the cops.
It is theft, and I do call the cops, or rather in this case the ISP's involved. The problem is they can't do much as the messages are sent from throw away accounts.
So, your definition of spam has now been expanded to include someone who sends _you_ (you, not thousands, not tens of thousands) a message you don't care for.
Show me your spam filters. Do you not have at least one individual's name in that list whose messages you route to a folder of trash or delete outright? I seem to recall that was the case quite a while back with a certain "Doctor". Indeed, even you make decisions about what is or isn't spam based on WHO sends it. In this case, you, not thousands, not tens o thousands of others is making a decision on what is or isn't spam because you don't care for it. =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian |Prying open my 3rd eye. So good to see |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were.... |..... ======================= http://www.sundernet.com ==========================