Rob McEwen a écrit : > Mouss said: > > >>...or you serve other people. > > > Don't mean to change the subject... but I do provide e-mail services for > other companies... should I have something in writing from them making me > explicitly NOT to be held liable or legally responsible for blocking > messages that I deem as spam? Any suggestions there? (I confess, I haven't > given this much thought!) > >
if you are serving other people, you must at least inform them that not all mail is accepted (you don't want them to sue you if they loose a very important contract because of filtering). if they don't agree, you need to deliver all mail. unless of course that uses too much resources, in which case you can rediscuss that with them (and possibly asking'em to pay for the "effort"). but it wouldn't be good to block mail without recipient consent, and it is unacceptable to block mail without recipient knowledge. >>If in doubt, you can click on their link to opt out (that will confirm >>the address. so what? the address already gets a lot of spam!). > > > Of course, but that is besides the point. well, that would give you a kind of proof if they later sue you. > > If I were merely annoyed at having received this e-mail, I'd have blocked > them locally and stopped there. But where/when appropriate, I prefer to > punish spammers more so than to accommodate them. (But of course I also > don't want to punish legit marketing e-mail that really was subscribed to.) > Punishing spammers is a lot of work. > Moreover, I think this might be a "textbook example" of a situation where > this former employee probably did subscribe to something years ago where > there was a "receive special offers from partners" checkbox... next thing > you know... this e-mail address was sold and passed around to many > spammers... many of whom live in that slimy gray area where it is more > difficult to classify one way or the other. > This is indeed a "classical" example. the other being: I register to some list/service/whatever. then after sometime, I no more want to get their mail. This is why the use of disposable addresses should be encouraged and made easy in mail setups (users should be able to "get" a disposable address for use in some "realm"). > One solution to all of this is to have some kind of legal standard where > opt-ins that are "passed" to a 3rd party expire after X number of months > unless reconfirmed... and, of course, this passing of an address to a 3rd > party is a questionable practice to begin with, even if the client left that > checkbox checked on that form they filled out... probably 5 years ago! > Unfortunately, this is too complex for both users and marketers. you can hardly enforce your rules once you gave the address. As far as addresses are just a way to reach the destination (they contain no information on source, preferences, ... etc), you can't control the situation.
