• Home
  • Insights
    • About Customer Insight
    • Ad Hoc Poll Results
    • Customer Insight
    • Green
    • Musings
    • Research Statistics
    • Top Performers
    • 495
    • RSS Feeds
  • Mobile UC
    • Mobile UC Business
    • Mobile UC Observations
    • Mobile UC Product Reviews
    • Mobile UC Service Reviews
    • Mobile UC Applications Reviews
    • Mobile UC Devices Reviews
  • Coms
    • IP Video
      • Video Conferencing Consultants
      • Telepresence Consultants
      • Video Conferencing Strategy
    • Applications
    • E911
    • Email
    • LANs & WANs
    • Messaging
    • Quality
    • Security
    • SIP
    • VoIP
    • VoIP History
  • Scores
  • Reports
    • Register?
      • Be Heard. Join our Panel.
      • Prize Winners Do Surveys
      • Unregister
    • Research Catalogs
    • Recovery Series
    • Collaboration
      • Exchange Review
    • Fundamentals
    • Messaging
    • Mobile UC
      • Alcatel-Lucent Users
      • Avaya Users
      • Cisco Users
      • Nortel Users
      • Product Manager's Guide
      • Siemens Users
    • Web 2.0
    • Pre-2007 Research
    • Comments
    • Brainshark Content Network
  • About
    • About Peter Brockmann
    • Contact Us
    • News
    • In the News...
    • Request a User Briefing
    • Request a Vendor Briefing
    • Full Disclosure Notice
    • Famous Brockmann's
  • David
Coms Email 30th Anniversary of Spam?

30th Anniversary of Spam?

Sunday, 04 May 2008 18:58 Written by Peter Brockmann
User Rating: / 1
PoorBest 

A lot of bloggers and web properties are making hay of the 30th anniversary of Gary Thurek's unpopular email sent to all the users on the ARPAnet.

However unpleasant Gary's message was, it doesn't meet the standard test for spam.

The standard test for spam relates to four critieria: 

  • Anonymous - no. Gary did not hide that he sent the email in question
  • Bulk - yes. Gary did send the message to many users.
  • Irrelevant - no.  Gary did send the email to people who were obviously users of PDP computers and would therefore likely be in a position to appreciate the improvement at DEC that he was promoting.
  • Inappropriate - no. The message is quite appropriate.

So on these four counts, Gary's action is only 25% of the spam definition. Here's a picture of me with Gary at last year's Interop (I was in the Sendio booth).

< Prev   Next >

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

Send
Cancel
JComments

66% of the Web 2.0 panel have no plans for a Public Blog.

Related Report:  Web 2.0 For Business:  A New Class of Coporate Memory

Login

  • Forgot your password?
  • Forgot your username?
Follow us on Twitter

Posts: All-Time Highest Rated

  • Why Register?
  • Guest Blog: Convincing Business Leaders About The Green Value of Their Low-Carbon Products
  • Internet on Us
  • 10 Most Popular Blog Entries of 2009
  • Brockmann Guest Blogs for No Jitter
  • Cisco Cius
  • Swatting Is a New Dangerous Sport
  • Cost Saving Strategies: Why Video Managed Services?
  • Identity Thieves Masquerade as Job Sites
  • Video Conferencing Consultants

Posts: Year's Most Popular

  • Why Register?
  • Mobile Apps Are Addictive
  • Now, I Have Seen It All
  • Taxes and Telecommuting
  • Breaking News - Avaya to IPO
  • Android Users Suffer Security Problems
  • Google Removes More Mal-Apps
  • Innovations in Screen Technologies
  • Applying Email Marketing Features to Personal Email
  • Where Have I Been?

Reports: All-Time Most Popular

  • Forums in Small Companies
  • Forums in Large Companies
  • The Problem With Email
  • Video Communications 2.0: Tips for Improving The Experience
  • The Manager's Recession Survival Guide video

Reports: Year's Most Popular

(c) Brockmann & Company 2002-2011 Scroll To Top