Re: legitimate unsolicited commercial email vs. spam

From: Adrian Cooper <adrian_at_cooper.net>
Date: Wed 10 Nov 1999 21:09:52 -0000

KEN DARDIS WROTE:
> I'm wondering how many people are beginning to see the
> difference between any unsolicited' email and that which
> comes from a source exercising common business courtesy.
> There have been times when unsolicited email was near to
> my needs, and I was grateful to receive the tip. There have
> been far more times (tens of far mores,) when it was plain
> spam.

TO WHICH AKILESH RAJAN REPLIED:
> The basic problem with even "nice" UCE is that, in contrast
> to direct mail and telephone calls, you are putting the
> resource burden on the receiver of your communication. His
> ISP is paying for the bandwidth that the sender is using.

Exactly right - and in many countries - e.g. the UK -
the recipient is also paying for time online because
all telephone time is metered. These in fact are some
of the major characteristics of spam which make it
totally unacceptable - the resultant *cost shifting* to
the recipient. This is why from a legal standpoint it
is characterised similarly to junk faxes, in contrast
to junk snail-mail where the sender has to pay the
postage.

> Now obviously just one e-mail from one company
> doesn't make a dent,

It is still a single instance of resource theft
nevertheless, and is potentially criminal.

> but thousands upon thousands of spammers can
> significantly reduce an ISP's speed. This is not to mention
> the fact that in some cases, internet users are paying for
> their time on the 'Net--either because of telephone costs,
> or because their ISP charges them by the hour. Spammers are
> effectively charging these people to see ads they may or may
> not care for.

Exactly!

KEN DARDIS WROTE:
> As the Internet matures and the business implications
> become more clear, fewer people will take such an
> across-the-board distaste for unsolicited email. Besides,
> are we to call someone and ask if they will accept email?

This statement from the original poster could not be
more wrong. Spam is an increasingly serious problem to
many individuals and organisations, and in fact already
costs industry heavily. In Britain alone even two years
ago when research was commissioned on the subject,
spam even then was costing British industry £5 billions
($8 billions) in resources and time - that figure will
be much higher today, and for the USA and indeed
globally, that figure will be much higher still.

KEN DARDIS WROTE:
> But I don't mind receiving something that increases my
> knowledge, and I'm beginning to think others share this
> feeling. Where do you draw the line?

TO WHICH AKILESH RAJAN REPLIED:
> You draw the line at unsolicited e-mail. It is in bad taste
> for the same reasons that junk faxes got banned: they're
> using your ink and your paper to give you their ads. It's
> tantamount to theft.

Yes -exactly so.

I can only say again as I have had said previously in
this thread - and as an active member of the major
anti-spamming forums, and as a person involved with
legitimate, ethical Internet marketing - if you send
*any* unsolicited commercial email it *will* cost your
business very heavily and probably that of your ISP and
others involved also. Don't be tempted to spam. There
are many legitimate, ethical methods of online
marketing available, and which don't make your
potential customer pay instead of you.

Adrian Cooper.




Received on Wed Nov 10 1999 - 15:09:52 CST