begin quoting Andrew Lentvorski as of Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 03:34:05PM -0700: > Paul G. Allen wrote: > > >Now herein lies a problem with Spam. Everyone thinks it's not their > >responsibility, that it belongs to someone else. If you want to use > >e-mail, then you, and me, and everyone else should do our part to keep > >the pricks from taking advantage of it. > > We do. None of *us* buy things from spam. None of *us* allow people we > know to market via spam. > > I had this discussion recently with a friend starting real estate. > "Look, telemaketing, cold calls, contact lists, email lists are all > *spam*. Period. It doesn't matter now nice you are or how quickly you > sort the list. I can't stop you from doing it right now, but if I ever > *can*, you're going down. Remember that."
Which brings up the issue: what *are* the appropriate ways to effectively create interest in your service/product/whatnot, especially using the shiny new technological tools we have these days. Advertising on web-pages? Sure, it's allowed, but most of 'em I block, and I'm happy to show others how to block 'em, so I couldn't really offer that as a reasonable alternative. A web-page referenced in McQuary-compliant .sig blocks. Sponsorship of web-comics/artists/etc. and online events. Flash-drive giveaways (got one of these at ComicCon, actually). Instead of saying "Don't do X", could we say "Do do Y"? > But, we're not the target market either. We're just collateral damage. > > However, there's no way for *us* to reduce the effectiveness of spam. > If there were, I would do it even if it were particularly annoying. Oh, yes. -- Especially if it were particularly annoying, better if it were obnoxious. Stewart Stremler -- KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
