Re: ARGH! Please make it STOP! -- MIDRANGE-NONTECH

(Replied to the original sender from midrange-l; sent to midrange-nontech
and sender directly, in case he doesnt' get that list.)

On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 04:19:16PM +0100, Jamie Coles wrote:
> I realise that Spam is percieved as an unwanted form of advertising, but
> then any form of advertising is unwanted unless it hits the desk or
> destop or doormat of the potential client at the time that the prospect
> client is thinking of purchasing something.

The difference is that other forms of advertising don't force the recipient
to pay the costs. Spam does. Put simply, spam is theft.

> Have you never used a money off coupon in a newspaper or pamphlet that
> came through your door?

I have on rare occasion...but, then again, the sender paid the costs. They
didn't force me to pay the cost of seeing their ad.

> Wheher one likes it or not - spam is becoming a "traditional" method of
> marketing or selling.

Not on my Internet, it's not. Email is not a broadcast medium. Spam hurts
the net, and will, if left unchecked, detroy email as an effective
communications medium. It's already driving people off the net.

I take significant steps to block spam and spammers. I use several
blocklists, as well as an extensive local list, and also use the
SpamAssassin filtering program. I rejected 386 spams aimed at my system last
week, and only 6 leaked through.

> Your empoyer's salesman personal visits were probably the result of
> someone in marketing sending out an email to lots of prospective
> clients.  The internet and thus email is becoming a "conventional"
> medium.

No. My employer has never sent spam, period.

> The subject of the laws on the various States within Amercia is one that
> living in the United Kingdom I am fortunate enough not to have to
> contend with, and they do appear - like many laws - to be made by
> lawyers to cover one loophole in order for other lawyers to discover
> another.

No argument here. There's a new federal bill being introduced that's even
worse. The only right way to deal with the problem is to make unsolicited
commercial email illegall except where the recipient has agreed in advance,
with each sender individually, in a manner that proves he's the one who
actually did it. This means confirmed opt-in only. (No, not the spammer term
"double opt-in". Are you doing double login to your AS/400 when you give it
a password?)

> I hope that we haven't spanmmed you and you may consider our products
> one day - I will of course only send solicited prodct information
> off-list should you request it.

This is the right approach. If it is the approach you take in general -
don't send an ad unless the recipient has requested it - then you're in good
shape.