Charles Gregory wrote:
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.
I see no point in beating that analogy to the extent that you have, the
point I made is that it's pretty apparent that purveyors of this "grand
new frontier" are lying when they make the claim that just because they
manage with clever fine print language to put the onus back on the
customer to "remember to opt-out later", that this somehow means the
customer put forth effort to subscribe to their bulk-email-advertising.
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.
The real issue is what constitutes WANTED mail. I'll
agree that spam that is wanted is "bulk-email-advertising" if you
will agree that "bulk-email-advertising" that is NOT wanted is spam,
OK?
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.
It is my understanding after reviewing the Habeas material that Habeas
has defined multiple "tiers" of "permission-based"
"bulk-email-advertising" so that "bulk-email-advertising" senders are
classified now according to the "level" of "opt-in" they do. The
Redbox-style "bulk-email-advertisers" are the lowest tier, the
people actually running mailing lists that customers have to make
significant effort to get on to, are the highest tier.
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..... :)
Then you probably want to block the lowest level of Habeas-accredited
"bulk-email-advertisers" since that appears to be what they are.
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?
To most users there is no difference
between spam and "bulk-email-advertisements" They DON'T WANT the
"bulk-email-advertisements" even if they have allegedly "given
permission" by supplying an e-mail address to do something like rent
a DVD and overlooked unchecking the box in the fine print allowing
the company to send ""bulk-email-advertisements" to them. It is only
a minority that will go out of their way to sign up for
"bulk-email-advertisements" therefore, that minority should carry
the burden of personally whitelisting these "bulk-email-advertisements"
on a shared mailserver.
Habeas's existence helps to make it more difficult for the
MAJORITY of people to have these "bulk-email-advertisements" filtered
from their mail stream, because now that the system admin is giving a
free pass to all the alleged "bulk-email-advertisers" the majority
now has the burden placed on it to unsubscribe from these mailing
lists. This is the case unless Habeas changed their business practices
to ONLY accredit "bulk-email-advertisers" who ran explicit opt-in
(ie: the highest tier) But if Habeas did, they would not be using
the term "permission-based" e-mail in their business marketing,
they would be using "opt-in" which is the industry-recognized term.
You seem to think that mail to a honeypot is the only form of abuse.
I say that anytime a user gets a "bulk-email-advertisement"
that they don't want, EVEN if they "gave permission" by NOT unchecking
a "can we send you "bulk-email-advertisements" box, that instantly
becomes spam - and thus it is ALSO ABUSE.
And, I would also state that any time a user gets one of these
"bulk-email-advertisements" that they did not EXPLICITLY sign up
for, EVEN IF they don't object to it after getting it, that it is
ALSO abuse.
> 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?
who DID you refer to? Your statement can be read either way and means
differently depending on how it's read.
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.
No, what Habeas wants is to get SA to put the support into SA for their
rankings, so that the typical "install-and-ignore" system admin will
be automatically using the Habeas system once they install SA, whether
they agree with it or not.
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.
And why not? It's those people that he needs to convince that he's
doing a public service, not the ones who already agree with him. DUH!
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.
Why? Habeas has not proven to me yet that what they are doing is
anything more than helping increase "bulk-email-advertising" which
ultimately just gives more coverage to the real spammers who aren't
participating in Habeas in the first place.
In my opinion the issue isn't whether Habeas is doing what their
doing the "right" or the "wrong" way. There is NO "right" way to
support bulk-e-mail non-opt-in mailers, period. Until the
bulk-email-advertisers PAY $0.25 or $0.15 or $0.44 or whatever the
paper-bulk-mailers pay for EACH one of their "bulk-email-advertisements"
they send out, they are nothing more than flies on the back of the dog,
stealing resources from everyone else.
When my employer has to drop thousands of dollars into mailserver
hardware to buy a bigger and faster server so as to handle the
increased workload that these bulk-email-advertisers are laying on,
a workload that 98% of my paying customers don't give a rat's ass
if it comes into their mailbox or not, my employer has less money to pay
ME, thus, in my view, those bulk-email-advertisers are stealing money
out of MY pocket.
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.
When those people see fit to explain how they are HELPING the Internet,
then I'll listen. So far, all I hear is crickets chirping.
Ted
