From the Talk-Biz newsletter...used by permission.

Nope. This isn't the usual spam rant. No diatribes about the evils of spammers. No descriptions of the subhuman deviancies they practice for entertainment. (Some of the stories involving hamsters, bubble gum and duct tape are too bizarre for general publication anyway...)

This article is going to attempt to clear up some of the confusion about what spam actually is and is not. Believe it or not, there seems to be a LOT of misinformation out there on the subject. And that's dangerous to you as a business user of email if you get sucked into believing the wrong things.

First: If you don't know what is and is not spam, you're at risk of crossing the line. That causes problems for you.

Second: If you fall for one of the wrong definitions and misuse the word, you can cause problems for innocent people.

Third: If someone is wrongly accused of spamming, they're liable to take any spam-related comments less seriously. In fact, they're liable to develop a distinct dislike of anyone who vocally opposes spam, whether they do it the right way or not. That makes it easier for the actual spammers to drum up sympathy. That causes problems for everyone.

....

My thoughts on the issue are based on the following ideas:

ASSUMPTION: Most of us don't want to spam.

PREMISE 1: Every list, website, bulletin board and other online resource is owned by someone, whether a person or group. The owner has specific purposes in mind for their resources, and use of them is subject to the owners purpose and permission.

Public newsgroups are the only exception to this that I'm aware of. The principles outlined here are generally applicable to newsgroups as well, with one additional condition: Quantity of postings. For an explanation of how this applies, see the FAQ at: http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2

PREMISE 2: People have the right to determine how their resources are used. Time is specifically included as a valuable resource for purposes of this article.

DEFINITION OF SPAM: A: Unsolicited bulk email, (UBE) *[2] - B: Postings to a forum which violate the content rules created by the owner/moderator of that forum, to promote the poster's interests.

Many people refer to only unsolicited commercial email (UCE) as spam. This is inaccurate. While most spam is commercial, UBE from religious or political groups, consumer groups, etc, also violate the premises of this article. Spam is not a matter of content, it's a question of the delivery method.

....

The problem with spam is, quite simply, that it violates the two premises listed above. (If you don't believe those two are valid or important, you probably shouldn't be in business anyway. Business without property rights is an oxymoron.)

This brings us to the first and chiefest of the misstatements made in regard to spam. The claim that anyone who opposes spam is anti-commerce. Honest businesspeople have always been the staunchest advocates of the preservation of property rights. They know what is required to create property and give it value.

Opposing spam isn't anti-commerce. It's anti-freeloader.

....

The nonsense about spam being a free speech issue is just smoke and mirrors. Free speech does not involve forcing people to listen. (And pay for the "privilege".)

....

There is a growing movement among spammers to try to convince people that it's only "spam" if it involves forged addresses, unauthorised use of relays, Make Money Fast schemes or pornography. They call the rest UCE, and claim they have a right to send it.

Regardless of how they label it, UBE is theft of someone else's resources. Content related issues are not relevant. The viability of the return address is even less so.

Removing the mask from a thief does make him a businessman. It just makes him a recognisable thief.

....

They also claim that any ISP that blocks their attempts to deliver the stuff is engaging in illegal activities or attempting to destroy the market for small business in favor of big businesses.

I wonder if they think that making the mailboxes of small business owners useless is somehow a Good Thing? Or if they believe that ISPs don't have the right to control their own property and how it's used?

....

I got an article recently that started out by saying that UCE is a Bad Thing. Okay, nothing new, but the author had my attention. In a later paragraph he stated that it's okay to grab "targeted" addresses from discussion lists and the like, and send them commercial materials without their prior permission.

Okay. Let me see if I understand this. UCE is bad, but sending ads to "targeted" lists of people whose names you grabbed off a discussion list isn't?

I asked him if I was reading this right. His reply made it clear that I was. I then asked him which part of UCE he didn't think applied to what he was promoting: unsolicited, commercial, or email? (UBE would have been a better base for the discussion, but it was clear he meant the same thing by both.)

No answer to that one.

Why do I bring this up? This fellow has been publishing a newsletter since before I got started. (That's going back a ways, net-wise.) He claims to be teaching people how to market online, yet he can't grasp that the two procedures are the same.

Yeah. I want to take marketing advice from someone like that.

He's also recommending that people violate their ISP's terms of service. I surely don't want to do business with someone that takes contracts that lightly!

Be careful who you take advice from online. Some of these "experts" will just get you in trouble.

....

On the other side of the spectrum is a fellow who sent me an offer for a review of my website. There were a number of catches involved that made it less than advisable for me. I sent him back a note explaining why I wasn't going to take him up on his offer.

He reported me to my server host, claiming I spammed him.

Needless to say, Scott (http://www.sohoweb.net) was not impressed. He informed the person in no uncertain terms that replying to an email is not spam.

This was a case where the complainer was attempting to use the word "spam" as a club. He didn't like what I had to say, and that made it spam?

....

That brings us to another commonly stated opinion: "Spam is in the eye of the beholder." The idea that the message is only spam if it offends the recipient.

Hmm. This is even worse than making it an issue of content. Now it's going to be a matter of personal tastes? If that sort of subjective standard is applied, you may as well put away your emailer for good. ANY message has the potential to offend someone, somewhere.

Frankly, I am far more offended by things like the "review offer" with self-serving catches or the article promoting spam than I am by an offer for vitamins or low cost long distance service. But offense is irrelevant.

Without consistent guidelines that are easily interpreted, people have no way to make proper judgments. That makes email unnecessarily risky for any sort of marketing, networking, or sales work.

And that doesn't have to be the case.

....

The point here is to make sure you know where the line is. Don't get fooled by people who want to spam, and try to convince you they have the way around it. Don't let yourself get blackmailed by idiots. And don't believe accusations of spam without proof.

....

Here are some comparative examples that should help further clear up the issue:

* Posting promotional material (commercial or not) to any forum, in violation of the forum rules, IS spam. Posting a useful, pertinent reply which happens to also point to something that you might make money from IS NOT spam. (If you do it too often or twist your reply to work the info in where it doesn't fit, it's really close to the line though.)

* Sending unsolicited bulk email to any group for any purpose IS spam. Sending bulk email to people who have specifically requested it (like this newsletter) IS NOT spam.

* Skimming through a discussion forum and sending email to all the posters that doesn't directly pertain to the content of their posts IS SPAM. A pertinent private reply to a public post IS NOT spam.

* Attempting to post ads or other material to a moderated forum which are forbidden by the forum rules IS SPAM. (It's just caught before it gets spread.) Posts to moderated forums which have been approved by the moderator ARE NOT spam. (If you don't think the post should have been approved take it up with the moderator, not the poster.)

* Autoreplying to list posts with an ad for your product or service IS SPAM. Using an autoresponder to let people know you've received their feedback or survey answers IS NOT spam.

* A discussion thread that goes on longer than you like, but which isn't clearly off-topic, IS NOT spam. (No matter how much you might dislike it.)

* Public flames ARE NOT spam. (They're generally rude and unnecessary, though.)

* Sending a single email to an editor asking if they accept article submissions IS NOT spam. Adding an editor to an ongoing list to automatically receive each article without their prior permission IS SPAM.

* Sending an announcement about your new affiliate program to thousands of people whose addresses you skimmed from business newsgroups IS SPAM. Sending a personal note to someone you are acquainted with asking them if they're interested in a joint venture IS NOT spam.

Hopefully this will clear things up a bit. If you have a specific question you're not clear on that relates to this, look at the principles involved.

Be honest with yourself, and you'll know which side of the line you're on.

Paul Myers is the editor of TalkBiz News. TalkBiz is published 3-5 times per week, with articles written to help you get the most from your business - online or off.

For a free subscription to TalkBiz News, send any email to newsletter@talkbiz.com