3 ms·

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 t

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?
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > I would consider saying "please reply to this message to unsubscribe" easily accessible, legitimate, and free. You're missing the point that by replying, the recipient establishes a relationship with the spammer -- he confirms that his is a working e-mail address, and he invites more mailings to that address. This is why security professionals warn to never reply to a spam e-mail. "Don't Reply to Spam - Spam Control Tip": http://www.hoax-slayer.com/don't-reply-spam.html http://www.hoax-slayer.com/don't-reply-spam.html "Don't Respond to Spam: Here's Why": http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2376031,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2376031,00.asp > I think spam is more complex than just saying "spam is spam". It's very clearly defined, so there's no mystery about it. That's why I say it that way. > 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? Yes, of course it can. Why? Because if that were accepted, spammers would hire poor third-world people to type out spam messages at one cent per message or less. Therefore, any unsolicited e-mail, meaning sent to someone who hasn't invited it, is spam.
    - bigiain 13y ago
      "You're missing the point that by replying, the recipient establishes a relationship with the spammer -- he confirms that his is a working e-mail address, and he invites more mailings to that address. This is why security professionals warn to never reply to a spam e-mail." Can you describe an opt-out mechanism that doesn't provide a spammer with exactly that same piece of "working email address" information? If they're sketchy enough that they'd mis-use an "unsubscribe me" email as an "invitation to more mailings", surely clicking an "opt out" link would be treated the same? (Personally, I'm happy to click opt out links for mail that's arrived by dedicated mass-mailing companies like MailChimp or Campaign Monitor - they've got a strong business case to not annoy email recipients, and although I as a Campaign Monitor user can easily generate a list of email addresses that have opted out of any of my mailing lists, if I were to abuse that list via Campaign Monitor, they'd shut me down pretty quickly)
      - lutusp 13y ago
- talkingquickly 13y ago
  > Quote: "Opt-Out – The email must provide easily-accessible, legitimate, and free ways for you to reject future messages from that sender" Precisely, there is no requirement for an opt out link. It seems hard to argue based on anything you've supplied there that replying to the email isn't covered by this. E.g. "Please reply to this email with the word unsubscribe" meets this guideline. To quote the relevant section of the act: "It is unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission to a protected computer of a commercial electronic mail message that does not contain a functioning return electronic mail address or other Internet-based mechanism, clearly and conspicuously displayed, that- (i) a recipient may use to submit, in a manner specified in the message, a reply electronic mail message or other form of Internet-based communication requesting not to receive future commercial electronic mail messages from that sender at the electronic mail address where the message was received;" Which explicitly states that providing a reply-to address which the recipient can reply to in order to opt out is sufficient. The full text of the act is available here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0723041/canspam.pdf http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0723041/canspam.pdf > Absolutely false and universally discouraged -- never reply to a spam e-mail. Bit of a myth, clicking an unsubscribe link gives the spammer basically the same information, e.g. that it's a valid email address. The spammer ignoring an email which meets this requirement is in exactly the same position as if they ignore an opt out link. Clicking on links in unsolicited emails is if anything far more risky than replying. Yes the link can be copy pasted but 99% of people won't know to do this. >> I might be missing something with can-spam though? > I'll say. Very much appreciate you taking the time to reply but based on the responses and reading through the site you reference it looks like my original interpretation of can-spam is accurate. If any lawyers out there who've been involved in cases care to weigh in I'd be very interested. EDIT: Provide the relevant text from the act which confirms that an email reply is a sufficient opt out.

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?
- lutusp 13y ago
  > I would consider saying "please reply to this message to unsubscribe" easily accessible, legitimate, and free. You're missing the point that by replying, the recipient establishes a relationship with the spammer -- he confirms that his is a working e-mail address, and he invites more mailings to that address. This is why security professionals warn to never reply to a spam e-mail. "Don't Reply to Spam - Spam Control Tip": http://www.hoax-slayer.com/don't-reply-spam.html http://www.hoax-slayer.com/don't-reply-spam.html "Don't Respond to Spam: Here's Why": http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2376031,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2376031,00.asp > I think spam is more complex than just saying "spam is spam". It's very clearly defined, so there's no mystery about it. That's why I say it that way. > 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? Yes, of course it can. Why? Because if that were accepted, spammers would hire poor third-world people to type out spam messages at one cent per message or less. Therefore, any unsolicited e-mail, meaning sent to someone who hasn't invited it, is spam.
  - bigiain 13y ago
    "You're missing the point that by replying, the recipient establishes a relationship with the spammer -- he confirms that his is a working e-mail address, and he invites more mailings to that address. This is why security professionals warn to never reply to a spam e-mail." Can you describe an opt-out mechanism that doesn't provide a spammer with exactly that same piece of "working email address" information? If they're sketchy enough that they'd mis-use an "unsubscribe me" email as an "invitation to more mailings", surely clicking an "opt out" link would be treated the same? (Personally, I'm happy to click opt out links for mail that's arrived by dedicated mass-mailing companies like MailChimp or Campaign Monitor - they've got a strong business case to not annoy email recipients, and although I as a Campaign Monitor user can easily generate a list of email addresses that have opted out of any of my mailing lists, if I were to abuse that list via Campaign Monitor, they'd shut me down pretty quickly)
    - lutusp 13y ago
talkingquickly 13y ago
> Quote: "Opt-Out – The email must provide easily-accessible, legitimate, and free ways for you to reject future messages from that sender" Precisely, there is no requirement for an opt out link. It seems hard to argue based on anything you've supplied there that replying to the email isn't covered by this. E.g. "Please reply to this email with the word unsubscribe" meets this guideline. To quote the relevant section of the act: "It is unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission to a protected computer of a commercial electronic mail message that does not contain a functioning return electronic mail address or other Internet-based mechanism, clearly and conspicuously displayed, that- (i) a recipient may use to submit, in a manner specified in the message, a reply electronic mail message or other form of Internet-based communication requesting not to receive future commercial electronic mail messages from that sender at the electronic mail address where the message was received;" Which explicitly states that providing a reply-to address which the recipient can reply to in order to opt out is sufficient. The full text of the act is available here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0723041/canspam.pdf http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0723041/canspam.pdf > Absolutely false and universally discouraged -- never reply to a spam e-mail. Bit of a myth, clicking an unsubscribe link gives the spammer basically the same information, e.g. that it's a valid email address. The spammer ignoring an email which meets this requirement is in exactly the same position as if they ignore an opt out link. Clicking on links in unsolicited emails is if anything far more risky than replying. Yes the link can be copy pasted but 99% of people won't know to do this. >> I might be missing something with can-spam though? > I'll say. Very much appreciate you taking the time to reply but based on the responses and reading through the site you reference it looks like my original interpretation of can-spam is accurate. If any lawyers out there who've been involved in cases care to weigh in I'd be very interested. EDIT: Provide the relevant text from the act which confirms that an email reply is a sufficient opt out.