paulm at paulm.com
Fri May 23 17:36:21 BST 2008
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Simon Wilcox <essuu at ourshack.com> wrote:
> David Cantrell wrote:
>> On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 03:14:59PM +0100, Matt Jones wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 2:55 PM, David Cantrell <david at cantrell.org.uk>
>>>> On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 01:21:38PM +0100, Simon Wilcox wrote:
>>>>> I received a spam today from a recruitment consultant in which he said
>>>>> he'd sourced my details from the london.pm web site. Which is obviously
>>>>> the people page: http://london.pm.org/who/
>>>> 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.
>> If you say that spam has to be commercial then presumably unsolicited
>> bulk email hawking a god or a politician or a charity or a fraud or,
>> indeed, a hopelessly stupid business idea is OK? Commercial is
>> irrelevant. It's being sent in bulk that matters.
> OK, So I probably meant "I've received a UCE" instead of "I've received a
> spam". I admit I use the term interchangeably but both are equivalent in the
> eyes of the law and that was my real beef.
The question you have to ask yourself now is, was it more hassle to
deal with that one email, or the limitless pedantry on London.pm? ;-)
> Bulk has nothing to do with being illegal.
More information about the london.pm