Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(May 2002)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: one person's spam is another's passion (was "Charge?")
From: Nick Simicich <njs @ scifi . squawk . com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 23:19:58 -0400
To: list-managers @ greatcircle . com
In-reply-to: <3CECF5A1 . 20154 . E480EE9 @ localhost>
References: <200205231940 . MAA28887 @ eskimo . com>

At 01:58 PM 2002-05-23 -0600, Mike Avery wrote:

That's a pretty tough test.  If I applied it to my
incoming mail, I wouldn't have been able to do my last
job.  I was an editor for a technical magazine.  If I
didn't get notes from people who wanted to become
writers or to write for us, we wouldn't have had new
writers.  If I didn't get notes from vendors I hadn't
dealt with before, we wouldn't have been able to review
any products except those we already knew about.

Absolutely not a problem to apply this test to your situation:

You put your address on a web site, with advanced permission for writers to contact you with articles and vendors to contact you with individually composed proposals regarding products to review.

This does not allow people to spam you based on anything that the happen to find randomly on the site, with anything that they happen to send you.

I have a web site that lists my mailing list contact addresses - the -request addresses, the addresses that people are to send to for posting to the lists, and the list topics.

There is implicit permission for people to send subscribe commands to those addresses. Not random advertisements, political statements, etc.

Problems with the mail system go to postmaster. Not random.....etc. Problems with people being twits at addresses that are associated with my domains go to abuse @
 .
 .
and so forth. Lots of us have to publish lots of addresses all of the time --- or we have to monitor addresses that are implicitly well known. This does not imply permission to abuse the published address, yet it is simple, in my opinion, for the reasonable person to understand what the intended purpose of the publication is.

And, when the bounds are overstepped by accident, (and not as part of an automated process), it really is not that much of a problem. The serious problem occurs when the abuse is automated and when hundred of thousands of addresses are randomly abused in a single operation.

Actually, I think it's a pretty simplistic test.  I draw
the line at unsolicited mail sent to many people.  If
someone has a reasonable expectation that I will be
interested in a piece of email they want to send to me
as an individual, I am usually willing to receive it.  Even
if I hadn't heard of them before.  I view this as part of
the price I pay for being in the public eye.  You say you
aren't in the public eye?  I beg to differ - you just put
yourself there....

And there is some customary implicit agreement to receive off list mail (although not list commands, please) that is related to your posting when you post to a list, and so on and so forth. There is no permission granted to receive advertising, massmails of any sort that is extended by posting to a list.


Mike
--
Mike Avery
MAvery @
mail .
otherwhen .
com
ICQ: 16241692                        AOL IM:
MAvery81230
Phone: 970-642-0282
* Spam is for lusers who can't get business any other
way *

A Randomly Selected Thought For The Day:
Newsflash: Microsoft announces Visual Edlin for
Windows.

--
War is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made so by the exertions of better men than himself. -- John Stuart Mill
Nick Simicich - njs @
scifi .
squawk .
com




References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: one person's spam is another's passion (was "Charge?")
From: Berg Oswell <berg @ eskimo . com>
Next: Re: one person's spam is another's passion (was "Charge?")
From: J C Lawrence <claw @ kanga . nu>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: one person's spam is another's passion (was "Charge?")
From: "Mike Avery" <mavery @ mail . otherwhen . com>
Next: Re: one person's spam is another's passion (was "Charge?")
From: J C Lawrence <claw @ kanga . nu>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com