funsec mailing list archives
Re: But Facebook are not spammers - here's a screenshot
From: David M Chess <chess () us ibm com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 10:53:44 -0400
Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:34:55 EDT, David M Chess said:
If I manually send a note to everyone in my address book, saying "sign
up
for service X 'cause I like it!", am I spamming? I think so.If I manually send a note to everybody in my address book, saying "Party
on
Saturday!" or "My new e-mail address is...", am I spamming?
In the "Party on Saturday!" case you are spamming unless you have good reason to think that everyone in your address book has a reasonable chance of caring. If, for instance, 90% of the people in your address book live too far away to attend, it seems pretty spammy. On the other hand, "My new e-mail address is..." is probably of interest to pretty much everyone in your address book, assuming your address book consists of people that you've exchanged email with. And yes these are definitely very subjective judgements; see below. :)
Now if I only have five people in my addressbook, and I send them all email saying "wow you'll love this band" because I think that all five
of
them really will love it, is *that* spamming? That's so de minimus and
borderline that I'd say "probably not".So at what value of five does it become spam?
There is no such value. It's roughly like asking at what value of N does a pile of N sand-grains go from being small to being large. But the "five" isn't really the important part of that paragraph, I don't think. For whatever value of N, if I really think that every one of the N people in my address book, considered individually, will like the band and appreciate getting email from me about it, I wouldn't consider it spam. As N increases, it becomes less likely that I can reasonable claim to think that. And yeah, it's quite subjective. For me at least, whether something is in fact spam has an inescapable subjective component. It lives, I think, in the "unsolicited" part of UBE. By "unsolicited" we don't really mean "any mail that is not in response to an explicit request for a reply"; we really mean something more like "any mail that is not part of an ongoing conversation", or something like that. Telling someone that has emailed me in the past that my email address has changed is arguably solicited in that sense. Telling someone who lives nearby that there's a party on Saturday is arguably solicited in that sense. Telling someone who lives on a different continent about it, probably not so much. Because I think that whether something is spam and/or UBE has a subjective component, I think that automated spam detectors are inevitably heuristic, and imperfect. But we live with that in the anti-virus world, where we have mathematical proofs that detectors must be imperfect. We just have to deal with the same situation with respect to UBE... DC
_______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
Current thread:
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers [was: And Facebook sells user data, too ...], (continued)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers [was: And Facebook sells user data, too ...] Gadi Evron (May 24)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers [was: And Facebook sells user data, too ...] der Mouse (May 24)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers [was: And Facebook sells user data, too ...] Gadi Evron (May 24)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers [was: And Facebook sells user data, too ...] der Mouse (May 24)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers - here's a screenshot Gadi Evron (Jun 03)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers - here's a screenshot der Mouse (Jun 03)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers - here's a screenshot Gadi Evron (Jun 03)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers - here's a screenshot rackow (Jun 03)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers - here's a screenshot David M Chess (Jun 03)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers - here's a screenshot Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 03)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers - here's a screenshot David M Chess (Jun 04)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers - here's a screenshot der Mouse (Jun 04)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers - here's a screenshot Rich Kulawiec (Jun 05)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers - here's a screenshot Tomas L. Byrnes (Jun 19)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers [was: And Facebook sells user data, too ...] Valdis . Kletnieks (May 23)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers [was: And Facebook sells user data, too ...] Rich Kulawiec (May 25)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers [was: And Facebook sells user data, too ...] Gadi Evron (May 25)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers Paul Vixie (May 27)