>The trouble with the Staples list is that some users on any given system may
>have subscribed. In fact, they may have subscribed and forgotten... in that
>case, the contract between the parties was in place.
Then that falls outside UNsolicited CE. I am willing to work with my
clients to except false positives, but not willing to waste my time
accepting and manually looking at every piece of suspect junk in case we
might have a false positives. The VAST majority of crap we reject is
CRAP. And I'm hoping to get better at it with Microneil's sniffer. :))
>Consider the scenario... Some users on your system are subscribed to the
>list.
That's not solicited CE.
>Some other user on your system becomes subscribed
hmm, that's UNsolicited
> and does not wish to
>be - let's assume through legitimate means for the sake of argument.
ok, just because it's the Sabbath, don't go get too rabbinical on this! :))
> The
>unhappy subscriber complains that this is spam, and you add a filter to
>remove the content.
no, you tell the unwilling subscriber to go get unsubscribed. If Staples
newsletter is legit, then Staples newsletter accepts unsubscribes, end of
story.
If Staples refuses the unsubscribe request, then Staples is an illegimate
spammer, breaking DMA rules, and will be blocked as abusive of my
client. Then the willing subuscribers can go take it up Staples to fix
their unwilling unsubscribe process.
btw, the DMA has policies, even some announcement this week, about the
rules for direct email marketing.
>Suddenly all of the other legitimate subscribers are
>blocked without notice or recourse... the only way they know they are
>blocked is that they stop getting their news letter.
This situation will resolve itself. The unwilling subscriber is being
spammed, Staples is refusing the unsubscribe request, so they are
rejected. Staples will fix THEIR problem, or Staples continues abusing my
clients, and will stay blocked.
>Now the Staples scenario may be too trivial... but suppose the situation is
>altered a bit. Suppose the legitimate subscribers are receiving an
>investment newsletter about their portfolio. Suppose the unhappy subscriber
>gets a pump-and-dump spam and complains, then suppose that your new rule
>somehow blocks the legitimate investment news letter because they appear
>identical.
false positives happen.
> Next day, the legitimate newsletter advises it's subscribers to
>drop Enron just in time for them to save millions... but they never get that
>newsletter.
People should be told, as part of TOS/AUP, that email is insecure ("like a
postcard"), unreliable ("like a postcard"), will have its headers and
contents scanned (ie, "opened and read" by your mail system) for possible
violation of your TOS/AUP (which your clients have agreed to) and for
dangerous content (infections), and will be rejected if found in
violation. If the prospect disagrees, they take their custom elsewhere.
(btw, if the day-trading suckers (I read where the vast majority are
losers) are gambling their money on email/postcard tips, then get what they
deserve.)
Is the USPS liable for your stock market losses if an (un)registered stock
tip letter arrives a day late, or not at all?
Len
http://MenAndMice.com/DNS-training
http://BIND8NT.MEIway.com : ISC BIND 8.2.4 for NT4 & W2K
http://IMGate.MEIway.com : Build free, hi-perf, anti-abuse mail gateways
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
