5 ms·

Would you consider it spam if someone manually went to a site, found their contact information, and sent them an email by hand? It appears to fit the same defi

Would you consider it spam if someone manually went to a site, found their contact information, and sent them an email by hand? It appears to fit the same definition as "unsolicited", and yet, that is one of the purposes of a business placing their email address on their website. I work in b2b software, where it's common for sales and marketing people to use publicly posted contact information for outreach (both buying and selling products). IMO, the formal definition of spam as "unsolicited commercial email" is somewhat broken in b2b spheres -- it feels a lot like "it's spam if I publish my information and you send me something that I don't want." The problem is the "something I don't want" is only determined after the fact.

agwa 13y ago
The definition is not "unsolicited commercial email", it's "unsolicited and bulk." In your example, if you send the same email to every address you collect by hand, it would be spam. But if you send a different email to each recipient, actually making it relevant to the recipient's identity, then it is not spam[1]. (You're likely to get a much better response rate too!) If the OP's service wasn't focused on email addresses, and instead enabled the user to research similar blogs and tailor an individual outreach to each one, then it would not be a spam enabler. [1] Edited to add: this is per the definition from Spamhaus. According to lutusp's comment below, the legal definition in CAN-SPAM is different. IANAL.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > But if you send a different email to each recipient, actually making it relevant to the recipient's identity, then it is not spam. Don't mislead your readers on legal issues. If the e-mail is unsolicited and doesn't contain an opt-out link, in most cases it meets the legal definition of spam and violates the Can-Spam Act.
  - agwa 13y ago
    Thanks for pointing that out; I edited my comment to reference yours. To be clear, I am not claiming to inform anyone on legal issues, but rather on the industry definition of spam that's used by blacklists and email providers worldwide. Unfortunately, we must still obey applicable law even when it's totally stupid.
  - talkingquickly 13y ago
    Not a lawyer so don't count this as advice but as far as I know, there's no requirement under can-spam to provide an opt out link, just that you make it clear they can opt out (e.g. by replying). [1][2] That's a big difference if you're using database's such as the OP to find contacts to email personally and individually but in a commercial context. I might be missing something with can-spam though? [1] http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus61-can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus61-can-spam-act-com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > Not a lawyer so don't count this as advice but as far as I know, there's no requirement under can-spam to provide an opt out link Source: http://www.fcc.gov/guides/spam-unwanted-text-messages-and-email http://www.fcc.gov/guides/spam-unwanted-text-messages-and-em... Quote: "Opt-Out – The email must provide easily-accessible, legitimate, and free ways for you to reject future messages from that sender" Not "allude to", not "hint at", not "suggest." The law requires that the sender's email message provide an opt-out method. > just that you make it clear they can opt out (e.g. by replying). Absolutely false and universally discouraged -- never reply to a spam e-mail. > That's a big difference if you're using database's such as the OP to find contacts to email personally and individually but in a commercial context. Spam is spam, and it is clearly defined in the law. The reason for spamming the victims is irrelevant. > I might be missing something with can-spam though? I'll say.
      - monkeyspaw 13y ago
        I would consider saying "please reply to this message to unsubscribe" easily accessible, legitimate, and free. I think spam is more complex than just saying "spam is spam". Especially in b2b (see the other comment about pharmaceutical reps). There is a factor that includes relevance (negative correlation with spam). Another factor is automation versus doing it by hand. Another factor is the intent of the person who publishes their email. Another factor is whether the sender stops sending messages once requested. Another factor is the existence of a previous relationship. Anyhow, I have one more question: can any message that is sent without automation (i.e., I type the message specifically to a recipient) be considered spam?
- monkeyspaw 13y ago
  Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. I agree with you on the email personalization, btw -- response rates skyrocket when an email is personally written, even if it has common snippets. My personal hope is that we're entering an era where bulk and unsolicited email has such a low response rate compared to sending personalized emails that people will realize this and go for what's more profitable. My cynical side says there will always be bottom feeders who take the easy route, even if they make less money.
claudius 13y ago
> Would you consider it spam if someone manually went to a site, found their contact information, and sent them an email by hand? It appears to fit the same definition as "unsolicited", and yet, that is one of the purposes of a business placing their email address on their website. That depends. Clearly a business selling computers that posts its email address on its website does want to receive emails from people who want to buy computers. They maybe even want to receive emails from people selling computers. What they likely don’t want are emails from people selling cars. Someone running a blog on X with an email address on the blog will likely want to receive comments about the texts he’s written there, but probably not an email on how to buy more X. As a general rule, if you or someone else plans to make money from the action incited by the email, it is most likely spam (not from a legal, but ‘moral’ perspective). This is especially true if the recipient is a private person and and you (or the third party profiting from the email) are a business. Or, put another way: If you wouldn’t be allowed to call them, you aren’t allowed to send them email (modulo the cases were people opted in to you contacting them by email but not by telephone).
n3rdy 13y ago
There is definitely a difference between "cold calling" and "spam" when it comes to b2b solicitation. I'm sure pharmaceutical reps show up to doctors offices often unannounced, but is that IRL spam or would a doctor miss out on useful information (even if the noise ratio is high) if this weren't a common practice? To me it boils down to whether the information could be useful or if the person sending the emails is running a spray and pray type of campaign. If you have built a useful product that could make a business more productive, you shouldn't be shunned for letting people know about it, especially if they have published their email address and gave an impression that they were interested in hearing about it.
prawn 13y ago
My site, next to my email address, specifically says I do not want to be contacted about off-shore development, SEO, electricity contracts, etc. I get a lot of spam about these things regardless, including from locals who've manually gathered email addresses and not just bought a list. There seems to be no recourse against many types of spam.

agwa 13y ago

The definition is not "unsolicited commercial email", it's "unsolicited and bulk." In your example, if you send the same email to every address you collect by hand, it would be spam. But if you send a different email to each recipient, actually making it relevant to the recipient's identity, then it is not spam[1]. (You're likely to get a much better response rate too!) If the OP's service wasn't focused on email addresses, and instead enabled the user to research similar blogs and tailor an individual outreach to each one, then it would not be a spam enabler. [1] Edited to add: this is per the definition from Spamhaus. According to lutusp's comment below, the legal definition in CAN-SPAM is different. IANAL.

lutusp 13y ago
> But if you send a different email to each recipient, actually making it relevant to the recipient's identity, then it is not spam. Don't mislead your readers on legal issues. If the e-mail is unsolicited and doesn't contain an opt-out link, in most cases it meets the legal definition of spam and violates the Can-Spam Act.
- agwa 13y ago
  Thanks for pointing that out; I edited my comment to reference yours. To be clear, I am not claiming to inform anyone on legal issues, but rather on the industry definition of spam that's used by blacklists and email providers worldwide. Unfortunately, we must still obey applicable law even when it's totally stupid.
- talkingquickly 13y ago
  Not a lawyer so don't count this as advice but as far as I know, there's no requirement under can-spam to provide an opt out link, just that you make it clear they can opt out (e.g. by replying). [1][2] That's a big difference if you're using database's such as the OP to find contacts to email personally and individually but in a commercial context. I might be missing something with can-spam though? [1] http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus61-can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus61-can-spam-act-com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > Not a lawyer so don't count this as advice but as far as I know, there's no requirement under can-spam to provide an opt out link Source: http://www.fcc.gov/guides/spam-unwanted-text-messages-and-email http://www.fcc.gov/guides/spam-unwanted-text-messages-and-em... Quote: "Opt-Out – The email must provide easily-accessible, legitimate, and free ways for you to reject future messages from that sender" Not "allude to", not "hint at", not "suggest." The law requires that the sender's email message provide an opt-out method. > just that you make it clear they can opt out (e.g. by replying). Absolutely false and universally discouraged -- never reply to a spam e-mail. > That's a big difference if you're using database's such as the OP to find contacts to email personally and individually but in a commercial context. Spam is spam, and it is clearly defined in the law. The reason for spamming the victims is irrelevant. > I might be missing something with can-spam though? I'll say.
    - monkeyspaw 13y ago
      I would consider saying "please reply to this message to unsubscribe" easily accessible, legitimate, and free. I think spam is more complex than just saying "spam is spam". Especially in b2b (see the other comment about pharmaceutical reps). There is a factor that includes relevance (negative correlation with spam). Another factor is automation versus doing it by hand. Another factor is the intent of the person who publishes their email. Another factor is whether the sender stops sending messages once requested. Another factor is the existence of a previous relationship. Anyhow, I have one more question: can any message that is sent without automation (i.e., I type the message specifically to a recipient) be considered spam?
monkeyspaw 13y ago
Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. I agree with you on the email personalization, btw -- response rates skyrocket when an email is personally written, even if it has common snippets. My personal hope is that we're entering an era where bulk and unsolicited email has such a low response rate compared to sending personalized emails that people will realize this and go for what's more profitable. My cynical side says there will always be bottom feeders who take the easy route, even if they make less money.

claudius 13y ago

> Would you consider it spam if someone manually went to a site, found their contact information, and sent them an email by hand? It appears to fit the same definition as "unsolicited", and yet, that is one of the purposes of a business placing their email address on their website. That depends. Clearly a business selling computers that posts its email address on its website does want to receive emails from people who want to buy computers. They maybe even want to receive emails from people selling computers. What they likely don’t want are emails from people selling cars. Someone running a blog on X with an email address on the blog will likely want to receive comments about the texts he’s written there, but probably not an email on how to buy more X. As a general rule, if you or someone else plans to make money from the action incited by the email, it is most likely spam (not from a legal, but ‘moral’ perspective). This is especially true if the recipient is a private person and and you (or the third party profiting from the email) are a business. Or, put another way: If you wouldn’t be allowed to call them, you aren’t allowed to send them email (modulo the cases were people opted in to you contacting them by email but not by telephone).

n3rdy 13y ago

There is definitely a difference between "cold calling" and "spam" when it comes to b2b solicitation. I'm sure pharmaceutical reps show up to doctors offices often unannounced, but is that IRL spam or would a doctor miss out on useful information (even if the noise ratio is high) if this weren't a common practice? To me it boils down to whether the information could be useful or if the person sending the emails is running a spray and pray type of campaign. If you have built a useful product that could make a business more productive, you shouldn't be shunned for letting people know about it, especially if they have published their email address and gave an impression that they were interested in hearing about it.

prawn 13y ago

My site, next to my email address, specifically says I do not want to be contacted about off-shore development, SEO, electricity contracts, etc. I get a lot of spam about these things regardless, including from locals who've manually gathered email addresses and not just bought a list. There seems to be no recourse against many types of spam.