| Internet spam is one or more unsolicited
1 messages, sent or posted as part of
a larger collection 2 of messages, all
having substantially identical content. 3
|
The anti-spam community on the Internet has long grappled with a problem
of terminology. Just as one U.S. Supreme Court Justice once said about
pornography ``I can't define it, but I know it when I see it'', we in
the anti-spam community have generally preferred to leave our definition(s)
of the term ``spam'' somewhat loose and ambiguous, in part, because spammers
have shown great inventiveness, over time, in finding new, different,
and unique ways to annoy us, to invade our peace and privacy, and to use
our equipment and bandwidth for their own entirely selfish purposes. The
time has come however to define our terms, and to make our position clear.
In contrast to redefinitions promulgated by spammers and their friends,
including those on Capitol Hill, and others who ardently advocate ``free
speech'' (so long as someone else is footing the bill for the costs of
carrying and delivering that speech), this page presents a precise definition
of the term ``spam'' as that term has generally come to be used and understood
by a majority of its victims, and by a majority of the
people who are getting stuck with the bill for carrying, storing and delivering
this unsolicited mass junk.
In order to insure that the definition provided here carries the weight
it should, we also provide a list of signatories of Internet users who
endorse the definition given here. It is our hope that this document will
lay to rest any attempts to redefine ``spam'' in ways that would cause
some forms of bulk unsolicited electronic messages to not be labeled
as ``spam''.
Internet spam is defined as follows:
Internet spam is one or more unsolicited 1
messages, sent or posted as part of a larger collection 2
of messages, all having substantially identical content.
3 |
|
Footnotes:
1 To understand the definition of Internet spam given
here, it is critical to fully understand what does and what does not constitute
an explict overt solicitation to other parties for communication.
An explicit overt solicitation for electronic communication
does not come about in ways that are not deliberate
or that are not immediately apparent and understandable to the party that
will actually receive the subsequent electronic communication(s).
Intelligent people who do not have financial, political, or religious
motivations to do otherwise have generally shown themselves to be fully
able to understand what does and what does not constitute an explicit,
overt solicitation, e.g. for participation in electronic communications.
However many on the Internet who do have financial, political,
or religious motivations to ignore both common sense and common courtesy
have repeatedly attempted to stretch the definition of ``solicited'',
often to, and past, the breaking point. For their benefit, and for the
sake of general public clarity, we provide here a list of things that
do not constitute solicitations for participation in
bulk messaging:
- A mere visit to a web site does not constitute
a solicitation, by the visitor, for further communication from the
party that owns or operates the web site.
- Transmission of an electronic message, or even a set of electronic
messages, either from one party to another, or from one party to a
public discussion forum, such as a USENET newsgroup, a chat room,
or an IRC channel, does not constitute a solicitation
for the recipient (or any one of the recipients) to place the sender
of that message on any list which will later be used for bulk messaging
unless the obvious and clear intent of the original
message is to request exactly such further messages, and
unless reasonable precautions are taken to insure
that the sender of the request is in fact the valid and authorized
owner of the e-mail address, ICQ address, or other designator to which
the subsequent bulk messages will be directed.
- Placing, or causing to be placed, one's own e-mail address, ICQ
identifier, or other unique electronic contact identifier in some
public place, such as on a web page, a USENET newsgroup, a bulletin
board system, or a public-accessible domain name registration record,
never constitutes a solicitation to participate,
as a receiver, in bulk messaging unless such publications (of
contact information) is accompanied by an explicit and overt
solicitation, from the owner of that contact address/identifier, to
participate, as a receiver, in subsequent bulk messaging. Publication
of contact information, by itself, is not a solicitation for bulk
messages.
- The mere existence of a public discussion forum, such as a USENET
newsgroup, a chat room, an IRC channel, or a bulletin board system,
does not, in and of itself, constitute a solicitation
to any party to send a message, or multiple messages, to that public
forum as part of a larger bulk messaging process or campaign unless
the rightful current owner of that forum (or the maintainer of the
charter or FAQ for the relevant forum, in the absence of any clear
owner) has explicitly encouraged the transmission or posting of bulk
messages to that forum.
- A solicitation to participate in one particular type, category,
or class of bulk messaging (such as a request to be added to one particular
mailing list run by one particular party) does not
constitute a solicitation to participate, as a receiver, in any other
or additional types, categories, or classes of bulk messaging, either
when initiated from the same sender, or from a different sender.
- A solicitation to participate, as a receiver, in any given type,
category or class of bulk messaging can never be
made by one party on behalf of another party. Only the party that
will participate, as a receiver, in the bulk messaging may create
a valid solicitation for himself, or herself, to participate, and
to receive such messages.
- With repect to postmaster, abuse, security
and other such role accounts that are designated, either by
relevant Internet RFCs or by the owners or operators of a given server
or network as accounts whose purpose includes the reception of communications
relating to the operation and/or maintenance of the relevant server
or network, message senders should be allowed the widest possible
latitude with regards to the question of solicitation of communications.
For electronic messages directed to such role accounts, a single
packet of any kind send by, or from, the network or server
hosting the role account in question (as long as it is not merely
a response to some earlier packet) to some other party, server, or
network, may be construed as a form of solicitation, by the
sending server or network to the recipient person, server, or network
(or to responsible administrators thereof) for further pertinent
communication to any or all of the role accounts associated with the
original sending server and/or network.
Although the clarification of solicited versus unsolicited
provided here may seem to be entirely a matter of common sense to most
readers, it is important to draw this distinction as clearly as possible
so as to lay to rest the all too frequent claims, by spammers, that they
have failed to adequately understand this simple distinction. Most of
us on the Internet have already been been victimized, repeatedly, by spammers
who say things like ``You sent me an inquiry, so I added you to my mailing
list'' or ``You have your e-mail address listed on your web site, so you
must be open to communication from strangers'' or the ever-popular ``Somebody
else, perhaps one of your relatives, must have signed you up to our mailing
list.'' This footnote clarifies that unless it was the obvious
and clear intent of the receiver himself (or herself)
to participate, as a receiver, in bulk messaging (of a particular type,
category or class) initiated by a given sender, then any messages sent
from that sender to that receiver are, by definition, unsolicited.
If any such messages are also components of a bulk
messaging process or campaign, then the sender is a spammer
and he/she/it is engaged in the act of spamming.
2 In this context, there is no defined lower bound
below which a set of duplicative messages can be said to no longer include
one or more ``spam'' messages. Within any set of two (2) or more messages
having substantially identical content, any messages from that
set that are unsolicited relative to the specific recipients that
received them, do qualify as ``spam'' under the definition given here.
3 In a
recent judicial decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the State
of Washington, the justices of that state's highest court formally endorsed
the view that:
| The term 'spam' refers broadly to unsolicited
bulk e-mail (or ''junk' e-mail'), which 'can be either commercial
(such as an advertisement) or noncommercial (such as a joke or
chain letter).' |
Although the justices failed to adequately take account of the term's
broader meaning (which includes all forms of duplicative unsolicited
electronic messages, not just e-mail) they did at least correctly pinpoint
both of the two key aspects of what we know as ``spam'', namely its duplicative
and its unsolicited nature. |