essuu at ourshack.com
Fri May 23 17:36:09 BST 2008
paddy at panici.net wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 04:02:18PM +0100, Martin A. Brooks wrote:
>> Matt Jones wrote:
>>>> I wouldn't classify that as spam, as it's not really been sent in bulk
>>>> without regard for who the recipient is.
>>> I duuno about that. Unsolicited? Check. Commercial? Check. Email?
>>> Check. Ergo: spam.
>> That acid test for spam or unsolicited mail is whether the sender is
>> trying to disguise their identity and the origin of the email or not..
> huh? Which part of unsolicited are you having a problem with ?
I think it's a case of Friday pendantry :-)
Spam is more correctly the name given to the mass mailout of email with
disguised from addresses. I should have said UCE instead of spam as it
wasn't a bulk email but an unsolicited commercial communication sent
specifically to me.
But as I said elsewhere, they're same as far as the law is concerned.
More information about the london.pm