3 ms·

Perhaps historically, but these days I think spam refers to senders that don't play by the rules. Unsolicited (ie didn't obtain the recipient's address in a leg

Perhaps historically, but these days I think spam refers to senders that don't play by the rules. Unsolicited (ie didn't obtain the recipient's address in a legitimate manner), no unsubscribe link (or not honored), technical measures intended to circumvent various filters, etc.

selcuka 1y ago
I agree. These days I don't report email as spam if it has a (working) unsubscribe link.
- BiteCode_dev 1y ago
  Oh, so a day is not rainy if your coat dries after it?
  - selcuka 1y ago
    No, rain is still rain. I just stopped complaining about it as it rains 24/7.
    - amy214 1y ago
      The ugly and awkward thing about the unsubscribe link is I never subscribed in the first place. Someone else did on my behalf. To even ask to be unsubscribed, I feel, is taking some ownership of the subscription and playing into a crooked system. It's like being sent an invoice for something I never ordered and needing to cancel the invoice. And even if you say, "buzz off", who is to say someone won't decide to "resubscribe" you next day, given it's outside your control. Me personally I won't give a pass to business with an unsubscribe link, I have extreme disgust that we're in some make-believe pretend world that I asked for this in the first place
      - SaucyWrong 1y ago
        I’m with you. I learned about the concept of “implicit opt-in / consent” while I was building an email marketing feature on a platform and I found the concept disgusting, but was told that because it’s technically legal, our customers considered it table stakes.
- dietr1ch 1y ago
  Working unsubscribe link is hard to effectively see. I'd be getting no spam emails by now if they worked. You'll get a link to unsubscribe (to just that campaign), or unsubscribe, but somehow get your email back into the victims table.
s1mplicissimus 1y ago
You may define it that way, but the original property of spam seems to apply nevertheless: They are low quality and noone really likes them. The fact that you have to frame it your way speaks mostly to the fact that apparently your income depends on spam being seen as acceptable and not a scourge to humanity. But that's just my perspective...
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  That's a rather baseless assumption about my income. Does it really seem so unlikely to you that a reasonable person might not use the exact same criteria as yourself? Why are you so confident in the generalization of your own perspective to the population at large? Define "low quality" and "not liked". Each person will classify a given message differently. At least in the general case it's hardly realistic to expect a sender to classify a message from the perspective of a specific recipient prior to sending it. On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect addresses to be acquired via legitimate means (ie collected only with the consent of the recipient) and to cease attempts at contact when requested. That's essentially the boundary between reasonable conduct and harassment.
  - s1mplicissimus 1y ago
    I did not assume, I drew a conclusion from working on email marketing software and experiencing first hand the worldview that seems necessary to stay in this line of work while avoiding cognitive dissonance. > At least in the general case it's hardly realistic to expect a sender to classify a message from the perspective of a specific recipient prior to sending it I guess from the perspective of someone doing mass mailings that is true. A pointer to what I assume is your bias on the topic. But from the perspective of the recipient, who actually has to invest the cognitive effort of reading that message, I think it's only natural to expect a certain amount of average value out of that effort. And lets be honest, that mass mailing doesn't usually deliver that. It's just another trigger designed to manipulate people into buying shit they didn't even really want. Let's rather have the default newsletter checkbox to be "off" and legal repercussions for repeated offenders, then I'll be on board for the term "reasonable conduct" too.

selcuka 1y ago

I agree. These days I don't report email as spam if it has a (working) unsubscribe link.

BiteCode_dev 1y ago
Oh, so a day is not rainy if your coat dries after it?
- selcuka 1y ago
  No, rain is still rain. I just stopped complaining about it as it rains 24/7.
  - amy214 1y ago
    The ugly and awkward thing about the unsubscribe link is I never subscribed in the first place. Someone else did on my behalf. To even ask to be unsubscribed, I feel, is taking some ownership of the subscription and playing into a crooked system. It's like being sent an invoice for something I never ordered and needing to cancel the invoice. And even if you say, "buzz off", who is to say someone won't decide to "resubscribe" you next day, given it's outside your control. Me personally I won't give a pass to business with an unsubscribe link, I have extreme disgust that we're in some make-believe pretend world that I asked for this in the first place
    - SaucyWrong 1y ago
      I’m with you. I learned about the concept of “implicit opt-in / consent” while I was building an email marketing feature on a platform and I found the concept disgusting, but was told that because it’s technically legal, our customers considered it table stakes.
dietr1ch 1y ago
Working unsubscribe link is hard to effectively see. I'd be getting no spam emails by now if they worked. You'll get a link to unsubscribe (to just that campaign), or unsubscribe, but somehow get your email back into the victims table.

s1mplicissimus 1y ago

You may define it that way, but the original property of spam seems to apply nevertheless: They are low quality and noone really likes them. The fact that you have to frame it your way speaks mostly to the fact that apparently your income depends on spam being seen as acceptable and not a scourge to humanity. But that's just my perspective...

fc417fc802 1y ago
That's a rather baseless assumption about my income. Does it really seem so unlikely to you that a reasonable person might not use the exact same criteria as yourself? Why are you so confident in the generalization of your own perspective to the population at large? Define "low quality" and "not liked". Each person will classify a given message differently. At least in the general case it's hardly realistic to expect a sender to classify a message from the perspective of a specific recipient prior to sending it. On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect addresses to be acquired via legitimate means (ie collected only with the consent of the recipient) and to cease attempts at contact when requested. That's essentially the boundary between reasonable conduct and harassment.
- s1mplicissimus 1y ago
  I did not assume, I drew a conclusion from working on email marketing software and experiencing first hand the worldview that seems necessary to stay in this line of work while avoiding cognitive dissonance. > At least in the general case it's hardly realistic to expect a sender to classify a message from the perspective of a specific recipient prior to sending it I guess from the perspective of someone doing mass mailings that is true. A pointer to what I assume is your bias on the topic. But from the perspective of the recipient, who actually has to invest the cognitive effort of reading that message, I think it's only natural to expect a certain amount of average value out of that effort. And lets be honest, that mass mailing doesn't usually deliver that. It's just another trigger designed to manipulate people into buying shit they didn't even really want. Let's rather have the default newsletter checkbox to be "off" and legal repercussions for repeated offenders, then I'll be on board for the term "reasonable conduct" too.