Re: How has the spam problem changed in the past decade?

>>>> In other words... has the "spam problem" changed in the last 10 years?
>>> 
>>> Now here's an interesting question.
>> 
>> +1
>
>- 1.
>
>Define spam, first.

Gee, does this mean you now have to punch yourself in the face?

One of the ways I see that the spam problem has changed in the past
decade is that we have converged on practical definitions of spam,
even though the nominal definitions remain all over the place.

I don't know anyone (other than perhaps Esther Dyson) who is worried
about individual messages, even commercial ones, so long as they're
not part of a pattern of bulk sending.  My working definition is mail
sent in bulk to people who didn't ask for it, or perhaps mail sent in
bulk to people who don't want it, which are different definitions but
describe largely the same set of messages.

Greymail, unrequested or unwanted bulk mail from big and apparently
legitimate companies is spam, except to people with a financial
interest in it.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly