Re: Email List Sponsorships

From: Brandi Jasmine <brandi_at_brandijasmine.com>
Date: Tue 27 Feb 2001 22:13:57 -0600

TREVOR JOHNSON <bpfsa_at_yahoo.com> WROTE:

>If you buy the list, it is no longer opt-in. The people
>on the list you purchase did NOT opt-in to receive
>anything from you.

There are companies that have people who "opt-in" to
receive offers from affiliates, or about anything within
a certain product category. TargitMail.com for example,
they are always at Internet World.

>What you are proposing is spam. No shades of grey.
>Don't do it. Don't even think about.

Before I jump straight into the fray, I am not "pro-spam" -
I have been active in CAUCE-Canada, and worked on the
documentation for the ISP that was the first in Canada to
successfully sue a spammer. But I cannot resist the
observation here that the reactionary attitude of the
anti-spam movement is getting to be almost a bigger
problem than that of the spammers.

>Do you really want to risk criminal charges pertaining
>to bandwidth theft and chattel trespass?

Has this ever happened, or are you speaking theoretically?
I am on an anti-spam news list and I have never seen anyone
charged in this manner. If so, halleluhah! Just make sure
you go after the real spammers. Myself I'd love to see some
porno spammer charged with sexual harassment (If I never see
another penis-extension spam it will be too soon - I've been
told I have balls, but this is ridiculous! <g> ).

>Do you want to
>run the risk of your domain ending up on blacklists,
>effectively barring 40% of the world from reaching you
>or you being able to reach them?

As a former employee of a large ISP part of my duties involved
dealing with spam complaints. Admins are banning domains at
the drop of a hat. I have seen ISPs banned and blocked without
warning or notice - thousands of innocent people inconvenienced
because some admin flipped the switch over one or two spams. I
hope that your organization is just as vigilant in suggesting
that administrators at least bother to check back to ensure that
the spamming activity is persistent and beligerent (and actually
supported by the ISP) before they block. Lawsuits can go both
directions as I am sure you are aware
(Harris Polls vs. AOL and the Internet BlackList).

>Our contracted Collection Agency is only happy to
>pursue and collect.

Have they ever collected anything from a spammer? That ISP I
worked for had a judgment against the spammer we sued and never
got a penny to my knowledge.

Another annoying development is some admins are blocking "To be
removed" in their spam filtering, just because some spammers
frequently abuse this choice of words! As the maintainer of a
legitimate opt-in list, I have found there are certain domains
I cannot email to because I use BCC and am thoughtful enough to
include instructions for my subscribers.

I'd be interested in discussing doubt-opt-in. I do editorial
on several lists - including one for an ISP that was actually
"opt-out". When you sign up for their services you
automatically get sent their newsletter. They justify this
by saying they have an "existing relationship" with their
customers, they call the list "part of the service we offer,"
and point to the low level of complaints that they receive. I
was never 100% comfortable with it, but had to admit there were
few serious complaints. I still advise against it, though. On
the other hand, double-opt in to me seems a little extreme,
even though I see it with increasing frequency. I have noticed
that this issue is marked as "open for discussion" on your list.
Do you have any figures as to the ratio of single vs. double
opt-in in the industry, and is anyone getting banned because
they are otherwise legit, but have only a single opt-in?

Kind regards,

Brandi Jasmine
Writer, Digital Photographer, Illustrator
http://www.brandijasmine.com/
www.astrology.ca - www.twostar.com




Received on Tue Feb 27 2001 - 22:13:57 CST