I think spam is a bug in smtp. It creates gross incebribes to turn the commons into a means to primarily run scams at the largesse of some who run the infrastructure. There are mitigating factors, and none of the users (besides those who are financially incentivized to do so) believe that it is an acceptable use of the protocol.
Discussion
*gross incentives
But my biggest reason for calling it a bug is that it triggers inscribooors or inscribooor apologists.
I guess it's triggering me and I don't even care about inscriptions. I'm just arguing for proper application of code terminology and the preservation of meaningful definitions.
Okay it's a regression. In the past, reprobates have mistaken Bitcoin as a storage mechanism. Devs fixed it. But a new release has caused the se problem to crop up. On a project board, regressions are usually given a work item under the "bug" column.
Okay, so is your definition that it's a bug if it allows for undesirable user behavior? Seems quite expansive. For SMTP I'd argue it's just missing a feature to mitigate or prevent spam. The word I would use there is "exploit". But I wouldn't say exploits and bugs are the same thing.