Google
 

Re: spammers / worldreach

From: Chuck Mize <CMize_at_tpcllp.com>
Date: Fri 03 May 2002 10:10:31 -0600

Pesach Lattin <info_at_adspyre.com> wrote:

> According to Jane, the World Reach Corporation is a
> "spammer". I'd be very careful to use this term, or even
> quote the spam newsgroups. I've found that the spam-police of
> the world generally over-react to any type of email, whether
> permission based or not. For example, I have several lists
> that require an opt-in and then a permission pass (ie, tell
> the person they have subscribed). Unfortunately, I've had
> nutcases put it on their "spam" list, even though we have a
> very easy opt-out process on every email, plus all the users
> information, and a variety of other verifiable stuff. Even
> worse, most of the spam-nazis are jobless, middle aged men
> still living out of their parents' home.

You are way out of line with that last comment. Most people
who fight spam are system admins who are tired of their mail
spools filling up with unwanted junk, tired of their users
complaining about the crap in their inbox and tired of
"ethikal biznesses" who want to sell you the latest get-rich-
quick scheme. Your definition of opt-in above doesn't
pass muster either because with your definition I could opt
George Bush (president_at_whitehouse.gov) in to your mailing list
and all you would do is send him a message telling him he's
been subscribed. What you should be doing is to send him a
confirmation email that he has to reply to and confirm that
he was the one who opted in. Your way allows for all sorts
of abuse from subscription forging. The ease of opting out of
your mailings means nothing if you're not doing proper
subscription confirmation in the first place.

I'm not worried in the least about calling World Reach spammers.
Anybody can do a google search on them and find that out. Click
on http://makeashorterlink.com/?S1CF25BC to see for yourself.

> I have received more than one email about the notorious
> SpamCop himself that has accused him of basically
> blackmailing organizations for his "consulting services" when
> contacted by those people wanting to be removed for him spam
> list. More than one mail provider has also said that his
> SpamCop program duplicates complaints to ISPs 2,000 times so
> that their auto-complaint reader will record that "2,000+"
> people complained about the "Spam". Companies like WorldCom
> shut down automatically any site that receives a certain
> amount of complaints and then "investigates" it.

The person who runs spamcop.net has a long history of shutting
accounts down of people who abuse his system. If you have proof
of somebody creating 2,000 duplicate spamcop reports (which I
don't think you do) then let the spamcop people know and they
will terminate that account.

> While spam is often a bit offending, and sometimes quite
> annoying, the tactics of the loosers who spend their whole
> life "fighting it" are even more so. The hundreds of
> permission-based marketers have to spend hundreds of
> thousands of extra dollars to ensure that they aren't the
> target of people who have nothing better to do than virtually
> blackmail us. It even annoys me even more that one of these
> black-list companies runs their own email company that is
> advertised as a "permission based marketing solution" to
> prevent being blacklisted - is this normal?

If you want to be in the permission-based marketing game you
need to spend as much money as is necessary to assure that
you're not spamming people. Remember that the cost of any
email you send out is put upon the recipient and not you. It
costs you the same amount to send out a million emails as it
does to send out one and your expectation of profit doesn't
constitute an obligation on anybody's part to accept your
advertising.

> In life we learn that most people have motives for their
> actions. Maybe the Spam-Watchers of the world have nothing
> better to do than to masturbate to spam. But I'm of the
> opinion that many of them are using this as a method to sell
> their services or blackmail companies.

I'm surprised that the moderator allowed the ad-hominem attack
but I'll let it speak for itself.




Received on Fri May 03 2002 - 11:10:31 CDT


HOW TO JOIN THE ONLINE ADVERTISING DISCUSSION LIST

With an archive of more than 14,000 postings, since 1996 the Online Advertising Discussion List has been the Internet's leading forum focused on professional discussion of online advertising and online media buying and selling strategies, results, studies, tools, and media coverage. If you wish to join the discussion list, please use this link to sign up on the home page of the Online Advertising Discussion List.

 


Online Advertising Industry Leaders:

Local SEO with Video
Houston SEO
Houston Web Design

Add your company...

Local SEO with Video
 



 


 
Online Advertising Discussion List Archives: 2003 - Present
Online Advertising Discussion List Archives: 2001 - 2002
Online Advertising Discussion List Archives: 1999 - 2000
Online Advertising Discussion List Archives: 1996 - 1998

Online Advertising Home | Guidelines | Conferences | Testimonials | Contact Us | Sponsorship | Resources
Site Access and Use Policy | Privacy Policy

 
2323 Clear Lake City Blvd., Suite 180-139, Houston, TX 77062-8120
Phone: 281-480-6300
 
Copyright 1996-2007 The Online Advertising Discussion List, a division of ADASTRO Incorporated.
All Rights Reserved.