4 ms·

I think that's definitely the case with free services. But I've even seen some paid services that pull this trick. Take Frank & Oak for instance. I've seen a

by GVIrish 13y ago

I think that's definitely the case with free services. But I've even seen some paid services that pull this trick. Take Frank & Oak for instance. I've seen a lot of ads for them and I have some vague idea that it's a fashion service for men. How does it work? How much does it cost? I have no idea, I have to sign up to figure it out.

lutusp 13y ago
> I think that's definitely the case with free services. But I've even seen some paid services that pull this trick. That's because they all want to hook up, maybe sell you something, and avoid a problem with the Can-Spam Act, to wit: if they e-mail you and you're not a customer, they're in violation, it's spam. If you have signed up, you're a customer, so the Can-Spam Act no longer applies -- they can e-mail you all they want. The really sleazy outfits are those that spam you, and include an opt-out link in the spam mailing. You click the link, which takes you to a sign-up page. The idea is, if you sign up, what you got isn't spam any more -- by signing up, you turn it into a legitimate business contact. The fact that the op-out-link goes to a signup page technically violates the Can-Spam Act (which requires that an opt-out procedure be both prominent and simple), but it seems no one cares about that any more.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  For such "optouts", the "report spam" button works as intended. If I didn't opt-in to the mailings, it's ethically spam (even if I'm your customer), and thus all your emails rightfully should be treated as emails from a known intentional spammer.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    That's the way I've always looked at it, but the Can-Spam Act perversely legitimizes what once would have been regarded as spam, and that to many, still is. Also, when people opt-out, what's to stop one business from sharing the addresses of opt-outs with another business, who then can drink from the same well? This is a glaring flaw in Can-Spam commented on by many, and it's why a number of influential organizations argued that it shouldn't have been made into law in the first place: http://www.pcworld.com/article/113137/article.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/113137/article.html Quote: "The Senate unanimously approved the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act last week. It requires e-mail users to opt out of unwanted commercial e-mail, instead of requiring e-mail senders to get permission before sending. That approach is backwards, say vendors of antispam technologies and at least one consumer advocacy group."
    - PeterisP 13y ago
      This is a problem with a social/technical solution. As you say, according to Can-Spam act it's legal to send spam to people who haven't opted out. On the other hand, it is also legal and ethical to make a list of which senders are sending spam to people who haven't opted in, and try to filter out all messages from such spammers.
      - lutusp 13y ago
        > On the other hand, it is also legal and ethical to make a list of which senders are sending spam to people who haven't opted in, and try to filter out all messages from such spammers. Yes, that's true, and IMHO admirable. The difference is that people who send spam are organized and have substantial resources. Organizations like Spamhaus (which do exactly what you suggest) are under constant threat of extinction by well-heeled adversaries. http://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/698/ http://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/698/ Quote: "The Spamhaus Project offers congratulations and its sincere thanks to the Dutch Public Prosecution Service (OM), the Dutch National High Tech Crime Unit (NHTCU) of the Dutch Police Services Agency (KLPD), the Spanish National Police (Catalonia branch in collaboration with the Central UDEF), and any and all other entities involved in the recent arrest announced in regard to the Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on Spamhaus in March 2013." The bottom line is that it's an uphill battle to fight organizations who have both resources and ill-advised laws on their side.

by GVIrish 13y ago

lutusp 13y ago

> I think that's definitely the case with free services. But I've even seen some paid services that pull this trick. That's because they all want to hook up, maybe sell you something, and avoid a problem with the Can-Spam Act, to wit: if they e-mail you and you're not a customer, they're in violation, it's spam. If you have signed up, you're a customer, so the Can-Spam Act no longer applies -- they can e-mail you all they want. The really sleazy outfits are those that spam you, and include an opt-out link in the spam mailing. You click the link, which takes you to a sign-up page. The idea is, if you sign up, what you got isn't spam any more -- by signing up, you turn it into a legitimate business contact. The fact that the op-out-link goes to a signup page technically violates the Can-Spam Act (which requires that an opt-out procedure be both prominent and simple), but it seems no one cares about that any more.

PeterisP 13y ago
For such "optouts", the "report spam" button works as intended. If I didn't opt-in to the mailings, it's ethically spam (even if I'm your customer), and thus all your emails rightfully should be treated as emails from a known intentional spammer.
- lutusp 13y ago
  That's the way I've always looked at it, but the Can-Spam Act perversely legitimizes what once would have been regarded as spam, and that to many, still is. Also, when people opt-out, what's to stop one business from sharing the addresses of opt-outs with another business, who then can drink from the same well? This is a glaring flaw in Can-Spam commented on by many, and it's why a number of influential organizations argued that it shouldn't have been made into law in the first place: http://www.pcworld.com/article/113137/article.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/113137/article.html Quote: "The Senate unanimously approved the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act last week. It requires e-mail users to opt out of unwanted commercial e-mail, instead of requiring e-mail senders to get permission before sending. That approach is backwards, say vendors of antispam technologies and at least one consumer advocacy group."
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    This is a problem with a social/technical solution. As you say, according to Can-Spam act it's legal to send spam to people who haven't opted out. On the other hand, it is also legal and ethical to make a list of which senders are sending spam to people who haven't opted in, and try to filter out all messages from such spammers.
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > On the other hand, it is also legal and ethical to make a list of which senders are sending spam to people who haven't opted in, and try to filter out all messages from such spammers. Yes, that's true, and IMHO admirable. The difference is that people who send spam are organized and have substantial resources. Organizations like Spamhaus (which do exactly what you suggest) are under constant threat of extinction by well-heeled adversaries. http://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/698/ http://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/698/ Quote: "The Spamhaus Project offers congratulations and its sincere thanks to the Dutch Public Prosecution Service (OM), the Dutch National High Tech Crime Unit (NHTCU) of the Dutch Police Services Agency (KLPD), the Spanish National Police (Catalonia branch in collaboration with the Central UDEF), and any and all other entities involved in the recent arrest announced in regard to the Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on Spamhaus in March 2013." The bottom line is that it's an uphill battle to fight organizations who have both resources and ill-advised laws on their side.