> let's save 'spam' for things that actually meet an objective, commonly-accepted standard used by most groups that actually try to stop it
Your definition is based on what’s legal under the “established business relationship” exemption in the CAN-SPAM act, not any “commonly-accepted objective standard” of what spam is.
Spam fighting existed long before a 2003 US law. RBLs came into being in 1997, Spamhaus in 1998. You'll note precisely none of these organizations (in any country) blacklisting Amazon, or any other company, because they send marketing emails to their existing customers.
> Spam fighting existed long before a 2003 US law.
So then it wasn't originally defined as per your preferred legal wording, now was it?
> RBLs came into being in 1997, Spamhaus in 1998.
And did they coin the expression, or was the concept itself around long before that...? (A: AFAIK, at least a decade earlier.)
> You'll note precisely none of these organizations (in any country) blacklisting Amazon, or any other company, because they send marketing emails to their existing customers.
Ah. So it's not actually the legal definition that is important, but the corporate one. OK, gotcha, that is of course so much better. (Blindingly obvious: /s)
Your definition is based on what’s legal under the “established business relationship” exemption in the CAN-SPAM act, not any “commonly-accepted objective standard” of what spam is.