On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Yes, this is the grand new frontier of e-mail marketing. Technically, you
*are* opting-in. It meets satisfactory criteria because you are using some
other form of identification to substantiate that you are *really* you
(you are buying stuff). But it puts the burden back on the customer to
remember to later 'opt out' after the genuine purpose for having that
e-mail has been completed. Very sneaky.
So, technically if I hire someone to kill you, I'm technically not
guilty of murder since I didn't pull the trigger? Technically speaking.
Technically speaking, your analogy is bad, but I'll work with it. To make
it work, the two aspects that matter are:
1) You (murderer) used a sneaky method to get me to sign up for a service
to be beaten up (I'm a masochist, okay?), but failed to notice the option
that says "in addition to the requested beating the customer is also
asking to be nurdered". So technically it's not murder. At best it's
assisted suicide.
2) When you hire someone to murder me, you show them that you got
'permission' on your website form, so the guy you hire doesn't think he's
being asked to murder anyone, but merely provide a *requested* service.
The arguments and issues with respect to that third party is to exercise
due dilligence in determining whether I *really* MEANT to request my
murder. :)
But now, because 'technically' you have people 'opting-in' you once again
face the problem that *some* people actually *want* the after-sale
advertising e-mails, and some don't and consider it spam. What default
score do you set in a situation like that? How much strength does a
whitelist get?
Well, since it's a MINORITY of my users that WANT the spam....
We've all agreed that spam, by definition is UNWANTED (advertising) mail,
therefore your above statement is an oxymoron. There is NO SUCH THING as
'wanted spam'. This looks like a pathetic word game to get around the fact
that some people actually want the mail that YOU don't. So it's "spam" to
YOU, but that does not make it "spam" for them, and their right to have
their WANTED (AKA NON-SPAM-TO-THEM) mail is just as important, or more so,
as your right to blindly stop every ad you can.
Stop mussing up the arguments with idiotic straw man arguments. Or it will
quickly become a one-sided argument.
Because the fact is if I use Habeas then the majority who DON'T want the
marketing stuff, (or don't care either ay) even though they technically"
signed up for it, now have the burden of unsubscribing or blacklisting.
Yes, that burden exists. Is it fair? Not really. That's why companies like
Habeas need to raise their standards to ensure that proper 'double' opt-in
is used for all lists. Any website hiding 'we can send you more email' in
their boilerplate/policy rather than as a clear "check here to receive
future mail" should not be whitelisted. Any website that 'checks the box
for you' should NEVER get accreditation. Indeed, if anyone ever starts to
identify those kinds of sites, I'd blacklist them, just for that sleazy
practice..... :)
BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS. The examples cited in recent posts have
been genuine unsolicited mails. Mail to honeypot addresses, etc. There is
an abuse issue, and it is not related to the otherwise worthwhile point
made above.
Didn't bother to address this point, did you?
> That's why Habeas customers need a whitelist in the first place -
> because they are adopting a point of view of what spam is that is
> contrary to what most users hold.
This is self-defeating hyperbole. My first instinct is to argue with this
brash mis-statement of their
Who is "their"
That's your reponse? You use brash hyperbole to totally skew the motives
of Habeas and the people who might use it, and you think to question who I
refer to rather than face the bald lie in your hyperbole?
The real truth of it is Habeas is operating in that grey area of trying
to please 2 opposing camps. On the one side they have the e-mail admins
that aren't going to use them unless they can convince those admins to sign
on, and unless they can, they won't have anything to sell the mass-marketers.
On the other side they have the mass-marketers who have an incentive to use
guile, and "sneakiness" as you said, to create large mailing lists of
users who may or many not want to be on those lists, and a huge
incentive to push Habeas to ignore complaints about their mailings.
Which is all VERY GOOD, and leads back to the single fundamental
difference we can make here. Regardless of our *opinions*, if the NUMBERS
show that Habeas is letting through spam, then SA is going to adjust its
scores accordingly (though I sometimes wish they would react more quickly
with interim updates to scores/tests at least every few months). So Habeas
ultimately WANTS to keep *us* happy. You and me.
My problem with Habeas, and the reason that I'll never use them on any
mailserver I administer, is that they aren't trying to work with both those
camps to bring them together. If they were, then a Habeas representative
would be responding to the Habeas detractors posting on
the SA mailing list, not you.
Actually, there is a guy from Habeas on here. But is he really going to
talk rationally with someone who accuses him of being in the spammer's
pocket and/or redefining the word spam? No. Though honestly, given the
nature of this list, I find it a *very* weak response to simply say "file
a report" and then not respond when people say that is difficult or
doesn't get results.
Is the 'date the UK' spam STILL coming through for those who complained
about it? If so, why hasn't Habeas acted on it yet?
They have had the option to do this already for years, now, and have
elected to use implied threats to the world's ISP's, rather than
regularly participating on this list.
Implied threats? More hyperbole? Got an example?
Charles, perhaps in real life you ARE a Habeas employee, which is why
you are so pro-Habeas.
Actually, I'm pro-make-Habeas-listen-and-respect. Your hyperbole makes us
all sound like a bunch of irrational whiners who are 'anti-Habeas' which
simply results in a deaf ear where we could really use it the most.
I respect a company that is out there doing something that I disagree
with, and is willing to come and debate with me why they have chosen to
do it...
Then stop with the hyperbole. Stop calling wanted mail 'spam', and instead
open a respectful discussion to have someone at Habeas *question* whether
the standards of 'wanted' mail are too loose. Calling it 'spam' just makes
you look like someone who should be ignored. And then they paint us all
with that same 'birds of a feather' brush, just the same way you wanted to
paint me as a Habeas employee. Really, do you think they read that and
want to take you at all seriously? You sound like a conspiracy nut.
Which is as close to ad-hominem arguing as I ever want to get, but the
point is to start being a bit more mature, and not shoot the REST of us
here in the metaphoric 'foot' while we'er trying to build a respectful
relationship with people who just *might* tighten up their rules if we
tell them about problems nicely.
- C
