I agree with the recent Linux and Main editorial that one of the most misunderstood aspects of the spam debate is the confusion about how it should be defined. While I'm willing to admit that there needs to be some discussion . . .
I agree with the recent Linux and Main editorial that one of the most misunderstood aspects of the spam debate is the confusion about how it should be defined. While I'm willing to admit that there needs to be some discussion about the definition included in any laws regarding spam, the essential definition is that unless a sender holds some specific, reasonable permission from me to send an email, it is always spam.

Email is not like postal mail or even the phone system. The postal mail infrastructure is in part publicly owned and both postal mail and phone communications are paid for by the sender/caller. The postal system actually owns your mail box, which explains why it is a federal crime to tamper with mail in a mail box, even the one in your yard. And as annoying as telemarketers are, they are paying for the call they place to you. Spammers do not pay for their abuse of my personal property. I do.

Email is consensual communications. For you to be able to communicate with me via email, we both have to buy a computer, pay for Internet access and a domain/email provider. Even in the US, this is a high price for us to pay for communications and that cost is made even higher when we have to deal with the additional burden of unwanted communications from people who abuse this system of consensual communications.

The link for this article located at LinuxAndMain is no longer available.