On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 12:02:35PM +0100, Barbie wrote: > From: "Paul Makepeace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Personally I think you're being a bit harsh. How are Manning to find > credible reviews for their technical books. They could subscribe to every > mailing list going I suppose, but that would take time and they wouldn't > necessarily reach the people they wanted too. They have targeted a credible > publically available list and are offering effectively a free book in return > for a review.
> To my mind spam is when a blanket mail is sent to several thousand > addresses, the majority of which have no interest in the product or service, ie untargeted unsolicited commercial e-mail as distinct from targeted but unsolicited commercial e-mail > and the senders of which are also likely to disguise their origins in the > email header. Manning have targeted their audience, and I'm sure are would I can't think of another word to add in front of "untargetted" but these sort of messages are clearly ethically wrong. > be quite happy to remove you from any list they have created for mailshots, > should you click reply. Maybe he is being harsh. The activities of the bulk spammers taints anyone trying to do an above-board campaign. However, I think the ethical dilemma for unsolicited commercial e-mail (when targeted) when sent with honest headers and a genuine intent to remove people from the list is that unlike physical junk mail, the cost of receiving junk e-mail is borne by the person receiving it. So the true cost of sending a (or a million) *unsolicited* advertising e-mails (or faxes) is not borne by the advertiser. Whereas with the paper stuff, they do have to pay for it. Nicholas Clark
