[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Donelan) writes:
> http://www.eff.org/wp/?f=SpamCollateralDamage.html
excerpt:
I. The Problem
MoveOn.org is a politically progressive organization that engages
in online activism. For the most part, its work consists of sending
out action alerts to its members via email lists. Often, these
alerts will ask subscribers to send letters to their
representatives about time-sensitive issues, or provide details
about upcoming political events. Although people on the MoveOn.org
email lists have specifically requested to receive these alerts,
many large ISPs regularly block them because they assume bulk email
is spam. [...]
i reject all mail from moveon.org here. not because i assume bulk e-mail
is spam, but because i still personally receive all mail sent to any address
at cix.net, and quite a few people who wish to subscribe from cox.net end
up typing cix.net by mistake. ("i" and "o" are adjacent in QWERTYland.)
i'm therefore in a position to prove that moveon.org does not verify the
ownership or permission status of new e-mail addresses before sending
political information. i tried complaining, but moveon.org's postmaster
function appeared to be understaffed or overworked or both.
further down in this otherwise excellent paper, we see:
II. The Solution (Or At Least A Start): Principles and Best Practices
[...]
2. All mailing-list email should be delivered to willing
subscribers. As a corollary, no one should be subscribed
to an email list without his or her knowledge and
consent, as evidenced by positive action.
...to which i must add my strongest possible agreement. if moveon.org
would just follow this principle or best practice, i would accept their
e-mail here. even though i found this EFF paper to be well written and
well researched in other ways, i wonder if the authors knew that moveon.org
does not verify permission or ownership of new subscribers, and if they
considered this as one of the possible reasons why a lot of e-mail admins
reject, as i do, all mail that comes from moveon.org. if not, then the
fundamental premise of this paper is flawed. if so, then they should have
mentioned this factor. either way, i'm not as impressed as i could've been.
--
Paul Vixie
