Re: Dealing with Spam and other canned meats

From: Alexis D. Gutzman <alexisg_at_marketingsherpa.com>
Date: Mon 05 Aug 2002 12:48:50 -0500

Andrew,

I can back up Pesach here. We've been interviewing many of the major
providers of broadcast email distribution services (aka list hosts) for our
soon-to-be-released US buyer's guide. One of the question we posed to the
60+ vendors we interviewed was: "Do you have a whitelist agreement with
AOL?" We had heard that such a creature existed, but we weren't sure it was
really true (although our sources were darn good). The two answers we heard
were (basically): "No, because there isn't any such thing," and "The terms
of the agreement (we may or may not have) don't permit us to discuss whether
we have any such agreement." One company said, "Yes, but I don't think
you're supposed to know that there is such a thing."

It was very predictable which companies weren't allowed to divulge whether
they had an agreement.

Frankly, when I interviewed AOL about email deliverability, they were very
candid about how to comply with their mailing system, and how to work with
them. They also said they prosecute spammers aggressively, and have won many
settlements from spammers. However, I don't blame them a lick for
whitelisting vendors who agree to police their own clients. They would not,
of course, discuss the possible existence of a whitelist.

Ultimately, if spamcop and spamassassin had any sense, they would sell
whitelisting for the large providers who have draconian anti-spam policies
(Dracon wasn't all bad; were he writing the laws today, he would likely have
implemented the death penalty for spam, as he did for theft and murder. To
give you an idea of his personality, the story goes that he was once asked
how it was that he had the death penalty for murder and also for theft, and
he answered that the death penalty was appropriate for theft, and he
couldn't think of anything more severe for murder!) I know they're not
necessarily equipped to handle the administrative headache of auditing and
certifying publishers; I just wish they could.

Back to the topic at hand ....
It's incredibly frustrating to be a reputable opt-in publisher and be
treated as a common criminal every time we use the word spam or filter or
free in an email message -- even if we're writing about the filters! I'd be
happy to open up our email records to auditing at our own expense if we
could get certified "100% spam free!" and pass through the filters
unfetered. It's a stupid system that won't last for long. Truste frittered
away it's credibility as a possible 3rd-party validator when it got into bed
with DoubleClick (before they sold off their list business and settled with
the FTC) to sell their (useless) "authenticated" email system (that didn't
allow you to opt-out of system in any universal way -- I interviewed the
tech vendor and it was clearly a solution chasing a problem).

The spam filters are limiting broadcast speech in a way that would never be
acceptable if the government did it. By filtering out words like: email,
filter, spam, blacklist, etc. they keep publishers from talking to
legitimate publishers and marketers about *themselves*! It's perfectly
legal, it's just (IMO) temporary, and incredibly annoying.

Alexis
---
Alexis D. Gutzman, Managing Editor
MarketingSherpa's Knowledge Store
http://sherpastore.com <- SEO Guide now on sale!




Received on Mon Aug 05 2002 - 12:48:50 CDT