Brad Templeton On Spam's Silver Anniversary

Brad Templeton writes "This Saturday marks the 25th anniversary of the first spam I was able to find, and one month ago was the 10th anniversary of the first time a USENET posting was called a spam and the birth of the term (at least beyond mudds)." Templeton was also cited in the American Scientist article featured last Sunday.

Comments

Re:umm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't think Spam was Hormel's first product, though.

So..

[CausticWindow]

What do you think Hormel thinks about this mess? All publicity is good publicity? I don't think so. I haven't bought a can of Spam for the last three years. Guess why.

I'll tell you their lawyers are constantly tearing their hair out, for not slapping Monty Python with a cease and desist, all those years ago. Now do you understand people like American Greetings? If they don't defend their trademarks, they might end up as the next Spam. What would you do if your trademark for the last hundred years, suddenly were smeared into oblivion by greedy net users all over the world?

Re:So..

[silentbozo]

Actually, the last time Spam was on sale at the local supermarket, I went and bought a bunch (low-sodium, fries up well, and tastes great with rice.) Even though I'm rabidly anti-spam (anti-uce), I have a very positive attitude toward Hormel. They're smart enough to understand that Spam, the meat product, is very different from spam, the generic term for junk e-mail/usenet postings. Moreover, they've delineated what is permissible in terms of using "spam" to refer to junk e-mail - no use of the Hormel logo, using spam vs. Spam (tm). I think their courtesy should be repaid with an equal dose of courtesy from the community. Hurrah for Hormel!

Re:So you're saying...

[insanecarbonbasedlif]

Ok, so they're caught in the crossfire. An innocent bystander if you wish, but by not buying into spam, I make a strong personal statement.

You can post your anti-spam sentiment to slashdot all you want, but it won't change anything in the real world. Only statements like mine will have a real effect.

You have GOT to be a troll. "Strong personal statement"?! What are you really saying "Hormel should fight junk emails, and until they eliminate them, I will punish Hormel."

"An innocent bystander" is putting it lightly. I don't think I've ever recieved a junk mail for Spam, a product related to Spam, or anything to enhance the Spam that I have, let alone any other Hormel product.

And, by the by, what "real effect" will statements like yours have? A $5 chunk out of Hormel's profits this year? I doubt they care about you and your misguided crusade.

...........

Actually, I'm sorry. I take it all back. Seriously. I think you're right. You should boycott all food companies and all food, just to prove your point. Then, when you die of starvation, you can become the first anti-spam martyr. That'll definately show those evil pig-processing non-emailing punks not to allow their product name to be smeared.

Fight for Your RightS!!!!

Re:Brad Templeton Gave Us Dilbert!

[btempleton]

No, Dilbert was already doing quite well when I picked it up, though it had not reached today's astronomical success and become an Industry unto itself yet. Scott was still living in the Bay Area, and still working for Pac Bell at the time.

One thing I did observe about Dilbert to Scott was that part of its appeal was that it was one of the few comics to make fun of not just high-tech but modern office life. There are other office comics -- Cathy, Sally Forth, even Blondie, but none attack the office the way Dilbert does. His best work seemed to come with Dilbert at work rather than Dilber at home.

Now I doubt it was because of my comment, but after that I noticed he started doing more stuff at the office, which was not necessarily a good thing since you needed some balance. But he did become a mega-industry so who can complain?

And sure, one can be proud of starting the first dot-com, by which I mean a company created to use the internet as a platform for business, which ClariNet was the first at. (UUNET was earlier but its business was to deliver you connectivity, rather than use the connectivity.)

Back then it was something new and exciting. Other people gave dotcom companies a bad name, wasting venture money (which I never took) and creating an illusion.

Re:It's in the can, dude...

[AndroidCat]

You have to be careful when saying "spammers". There's the spammers like Al Ralsky, who have no political pull, and then there's the Direct Media Advertising lobby which does. What's the difference? The DMA defines what they do as "not spam".

The DMA wants laws that outlaw the penis-pill spammers, while preserving the utility of your inbox as an advertising medium for their targeted important message, and outlaw any filtering/blocking of that message. (In other words, they want to allow their main-sleeze spam. :^)

Re:spam threatens brodcasters revenue model

[AndroidCat]

Perhaps, but when laws against spam are being created, you have to keep your eye on the pea under those shells. Always look at what they define as spam. Sharp's Corollary to Rule #1: Spammers attempt to re-define "spamming" as that which they do not do.

Any bets that political spam by "responsible" organizations isn't defined as spam? The DMA lobby also makes sure that their "targeted marketing" isn't spam either.