>...
>
>List Mail User wrote:
><chopped out previous information about hairdresser>
>
>> JohnS,
>>
>> As many of the regulars on this list can tell you, I *hate* spam
>>as much as nearly anyone here; But... Mike is absolutely correct, what
>>they have done is "slimely", but is not for most purposes "spam" (IANAL).
>>It is UCE (unsolicited commercial email), and it meets some peoples' way
>>of defining spam, but to the best of my knowledge was entirely legal (you
>>did have a business relationship with them). Now, if a year were to pass
>>and it happened again - it would be "spam". Also, not having an "opt-out"
>>is, as best I understand, a legal no-no.
>>
>>
>>
>I would say that technically, it IS spam. UCE is simply a 'polite' way
>of saying 'spam'.
>
>Almost every bit of spam I get is advertising a product - thus, it is a
>commercial email, and I certainly haven't solicited it. I.E.
>"Unsolicited Commercial Email"
>
>Process - I sign up for an account at a company. Said company has no
>information anywhere stating "By signing up, you're acknowledging that
>we can send you information on bestial erectile dysfunction".
>
>Said company then starts sending me email on bestial erectile dysfunction.
>
>At this point, the company is spamming me.
>
>To NOT be "spam" and be *cough* condoned UCE, it must
>
>1) Tell you that you're going to get it when you sign up; or
>1a) Send you a notification that you are now being signed up for it.
>(Southwestern Bell doesn't seem to do this either, btw. They created a
>new list and signed me up for it. Yahoo has also done this before. I
>had to figure out that they had created new lists, then unsubscribe,
>before they could start)
>2) Give you the option to opt-out, either when you sign up, or in the
>initial email.
>3) Give physical contact information about the company
>and
>4) Have a publicly, and easily, available set of privacy statements.
>
>This company did not follow 1), 1a), or 4). Thus, it's spam. (2 is
>debatable. If they don't check it, it's not really a way to get out, is
>it?). 3) is unknown - he hasn't said.
>
>BW
>
BW,
If only that were true, I'd love to know it. To the best of my
knowledge only your point "2)" is correct, and I did state that one in
my message. If you have a pointer to a law regarding the others (sections
of CAN-SPAM or relevant state code is enough for me - I can look them up),
I *really* would like to see them. (I'll also concede "3)", but only as
far as I know regarding financial companies - e.g. banks, credit card
companies, insurance firms, brokerage houses, etc..)
Now, what you say *was* the law in California before CAN-SPAM
superseded it; But every little bit helps. The "legal" issue I dislike
the most is the allowed "sharing" with "affiliated" companies (i.e. anyone
who has a co-marketing agreement in place).
Still, the best defense seems to be to use a unique email for every
business relationship (which clearly not everyone can do) - I still get an
unusual amount of UCE to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (it is all refused at
the SMTP level), and I'm sure other companies would take advantage if I
didn't tend to use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the forms they insist upon (try
to fill out a rebate form without an email address sometime).
Also, I believe your point "4)" did pass the Senate (the infamous
quoted Senate bill that used to be common in spam), but was never adopted
into any passed legislation.
In far too many ways, the law treats spam like junk email, and ignores
the fact that for email the recipient pays the "postage". Different groups
have many different definitions of "spam", but UCE has a "legal" definition
(and unfortunately is allowed too much, in my opinion). Both SpamCop and
Spamhaus have definitions on their websites that I wish were reflected by
actual law.
All this is a long and wordy way of saying I'd like to agree with
you - I just need a few references to convince me.
Paul Shupak
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
