Content alone is not the criteria for condemning an email. I may personally
dislike the message but if it is subscribed, to "hands off". It is far to
easy, when we control the switch, to let our own tastes, beliefs, and
prejudices, influence our trigger finger.
That is a good point (in fact, @abuse.net, the Internet "clearinghouse" for abuse@ addresses, has completely banned our Internet provider "for spite" (their words)). All too often people trying to control spam aren't careful enough about it.

The end user is most often the real problem. They have subscribed by not
UNchecking the "send me offers", and "receive offers from our marketing
partners" box. In a rush to get FREE software these are often overlooked. By
giving permission the address is fair game.
Very true. In fact, several times I've heard of people complaining about E-mail with the "Habeas Headers" in them. The *only* way those headers can legally be used is with permission from Habeas, Inc. They say that "For bulk commercial email that is not verified opt-in, Habeas does not license the Warrant Mark at any price." So any E-mail with the Habeas headers is either [1] verified opt-in, or [2] violating the law (in which case Habeas should be contacted, as they are planning to sue any and all spammers that use their headers illegally).
-Scott

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


Reply via email to