Spam Defined

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

Please view the list of current signatories to the definition of spam provided above.

Please add your name to the list above and become an official signatory of this definitions of spam. We need to have as many people as possible stand up and be counted.

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.