Duster
02-24-2001, 04:21 AM
Whether a host uses the term spamming or not in their TOS/AUP as a prohibited act, it is necessary to define it. So many words are misused that they have no value for understanding except by definition. Currently we have discussions about ther words "free" and "spam" that indicate this, and there are many others.
Unfortunately, many definitions are wrong. You can see one example at http://webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=5855&pagenumber=2 There are many other hosts that have similarly poorly defined terms.
This post is made in an effort to explain why some of these definitions are wrong. One of the many points Albert Einstein makes in his explanation of his theory of relativity, is that if you can't define something, you don't understand it.
Let's start then by defining what is objectionable in e-mail. I will refrain from using the term "spam" from this point on, although that is what I am referring to.
The only accurate definition is unsolicited bulk e-mail (UBE). You cannot omit either the unsolicited or the bulk. If you do, it is no longer objectionable except on an individual basis.
Why it isn't unsolicited e-mail alone
Most discussions start off unsolicited. Someone decides to contact someone else, to initiate a conversation, inquire about something, or other reason.
About 4 years ago, a woman e-mailed me at my scuba diving site. She inquired if I might be able to help find her godfather, who she hadn't seen in 22 years. As a matter of fact, I did. That started as an entirely unsolicited e-mail on her part.
Why it isn't unsolicited commercial e-mail alone
All I host are sites for businesses and organizations. One of them is a large importer of mushrooms. Suppose he was seeking new growers to buy from. Should he be forbidden from e-mailing a single one because the nature of the business is commercial? Another is a manufacturer of aluminum products, including doors and windows. If he decided to contact potential new suppliers of aluminum, why would it be wrong?
One of my customers is a wet suit manufacturer. I used to do some work in their office on the computer. One of the things I did was contact Asian neoprene manufacturers for samples. One of these was Yamamoto, in Japan (who called twice on the phone later, incidentally). They hadn't solicited my e-mail message.
There is no valid reason why there should be any prohibition against unsolicted commercial e-mail.
Another part of this reason is that a lot of objectionable e-mail is not commercial in nature. I've had UBE sent by a politician, a minister, joke lists, people I don't know wanting to see how far around the world an e-mail message could travel, and all sorts of other messages that didn't want money and were still an intrusion and unwelcome in my e-mail box.
Why it isn't bulk e-mail alone
This is the easiest one to explain. If a business or organization has developed a mailing list of people who have expressed an interest in receiving information, whether commercial or not, they should be able to send it. Over 2 years ago, I had a mailing list of over 300 scuba diving clubs who had elected to receive information from me. The information was directly relevant to dive clubs and they had asked for it. They should be able to get it without cancellation from a hosting company.
A big dive magazine has a much larger newsletter mailing to people who signed up for it (that includes me). That too is a bulk mailing (many more times than the small list I had), going out to many thousands of divers.
Legitimate e-mail marketers (like Brightmail) have verified opt-in lists of people who have chosen to receive information on various topics, including many commercial ones. They should be allowed to send to anyone who has chosen to receive.
The only definition that fits e-mail that should be prohibited is unsolicited bulk e-mail. *
It's the only one that rules out messages sent indiscriminately to people who have expressed no interest in receiving it.
Please consider that in your TOS or AUP and make sure they aren't unduly restrictive by virtue of poor definitions.
* Of course, illegal material is prohibited also, although it is distinguished by content. UBE should be prohibited since it was not requested.
Unfortunately, many definitions are wrong. You can see one example at http://webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=5855&pagenumber=2 There are many other hosts that have similarly poorly defined terms.
This post is made in an effort to explain why some of these definitions are wrong. One of the many points Albert Einstein makes in his explanation of his theory of relativity, is that if you can't define something, you don't understand it.
Let's start then by defining what is objectionable in e-mail. I will refrain from using the term "spam" from this point on, although that is what I am referring to.
The only accurate definition is unsolicited bulk e-mail (UBE). You cannot omit either the unsolicited or the bulk. If you do, it is no longer objectionable except on an individual basis.
Why it isn't unsolicited e-mail alone
Most discussions start off unsolicited. Someone decides to contact someone else, to initiate a conversation, inquire about something, or other reason.
About 4 years ago, a woman e-mailed me at my scuba diving site. She inquired if I might be able to help find her godfather, who she hadn't seen in 22 years. As a matter of fact, I did. That started as an entirely unsolicited e-mail on her part.
Why it isn't unsolicited commercial e-mail alone
All I host are sites for businesses and organizations. One of them is a large importer of mushrooms. Suppose he was seeking new growers to buy from. Should he be forbidden from e-mailing a single one because the nature of the business is commercial? Another is a manufacturer of aluminum products, including doors and windows. If he decided to contact potential new suppliers of aluminum, why would it be wrong?
One of my customers is a wet suit manufacturer. I used to do some work in their office on the computer. One of the things I did was contact Asian neoprene manufacturers for samples. One of these was Yamamoto, in Japan (who called twice on the phone later, incidentally). They hadn't solicited my e-mail message.
There is no valid reason why there should be any prohibition against unsolicted commercial e-mail.
Another part of this reason is that a lot of objectionable e-mail is not commercial in nature. I've had UBE sent by a politician, a minister, joke lists, people I don't know wanting to see how far around the world an e-mail message could travel, and all sorts of other messages that didn't want money and were still an intrusion and unwelcome in my e-mail box.
Why it isn't bulk e-mail alone
This is the easiest one to explain. If a business or organization has developed a mailing list of people who have expressed an interest in receiving information, whether commercial or not, they should be able to send it. Over 2 years ago, I had a mailing list of over 300 scuba diving clubs who had elected to receive information from me. The information was directly relevant to dive clubs and they had asked for it. They should be able to get it without cancellation from a hosting company.
A big dive magazine has a much larger newsletter mailing to people who signed up for it (that includes me). That too is a bulk mailing (many more times than the small list I had), going out to many thousands of divers.
Legitimate e-mail marketers (like Brightmail) have verified opt-in lists of people who have chosen to receive information on various topics, including many commercial ones. They should be allowed to send to anyone who has chosen to receive.
The only definition that fits e-mail that should be prohibited is unsolicited bulk e-mail. *
It's the only one that rules out messages sent indiscriminately to people who have expressed no interest in receiving it.
Please consider that in your TOS or AUP and make sure they aren't unduly restrictive by virtue of poor definitions.
* Of course, illegal material is prohibited also, although it is distinguished by content. UBE should be prohibited since it was not requested.