4 ms·

Ah, but it's a better test than the one you're suggesting. Here's why: Yes, I would expect monthly receipts where billing is concerned from all companies with

Ah, but it's a better test than the one you're suggesting. Here's why: Yes, I would expect monthly receipts where billing is concerned from all companies with which I have an account. Reminders for true appointments are also ok across the board (but I'd prefer to be able to disable and rely upon my own calendar, but fine). These possibilities are consistent with the test I suggest. No, I do not want "cheesy ecards" from every (or any) company. This possibility is precisely precluded from the test I suggest by design. If you want this from all of the companies with which you have accounts, I'm surprised. The test should be much closer to: does this email make our customers happier? Unfortunately, this test is too vague when companies think that "people expect emails from products they love" so much so that they believe seasonal greetings and daylight savings reminders will make their customer happy. If companies stop and think first what would happen if every company followed their lead, their decision making might be a bit more objectively informed. At best, companies who abuse their customers' email accounts as the OP suggests rationalize that it makes their customers happy. At worst, they'll take small percentage of increased sales at the expense of annoying the rest of their customer base and just not care.

nmcfarl 13y ago
What is inconsistent is that I consider some receipts spamº. As a matter of fact I consider A LOT of transactional mail spam. And under the test of "would I want to get a similar email" from all the companies I do business with, I’d have to say I want no mail at all. But that’s not the truth - I want emails that are helpful, and not emails that are pointless. What’s helpful and pointless varies from recipient to recipient - but it also varies from company to company - some mails that are appropriate for other companies are not for yours. And vis versa. A blanket rule that if one kind of mail is unacceptable if everyone sends is unacceptable for anyone to send really isn’t true. There needs to be a middle ground. I think my rule is fine - if the person using the test is close enough to me in what they want. Perhaps your rule is fine, if the person is closer to you. This is probably why this is so hard - we can’t even formulate a rule that people of good faith can follow to build an acceptable policy. º Spam receipts I my company gets include every mail from AT&T, Zendesk, and Safari Books where we're just paying the standard monthly charge. Overages - those I’d like to know about but of course we don’t get those kinds of useful emails - we get those when do the books.

nmcfarl 13y ago

What is inconsistent is that I consider some receipts spamº. As a matter of fact I consider A LOT of transactional mail spam. And under the test of "would I want to get a similar email" from all the companies I do business with, I’d have to say I want no mail at all. But that’s not the truth - I want emails that are helpful, and not emails that are pointless. What’s helpful and pointless varies from recipient to recipient - but it also varies from company to company - some mails that are appropriate for other companies are not for yours. And vis versa. A blanket rule that if one kind of mail is unacceptable if everyone sends is unacceptable for anyone to send really isn’t true. There needs to be a middle ground. I think my rule is fine - if the person using the test is close enough to me in what they want. Perhaps your rule is fine, if the person is closer to you. This is probably why this is so hard - we can’t even formulate a rule that people of good faith can follow to build an acceptable policy. º Spam receipts I my company gets include every mail from AT&T, Zendesk, and Safari Books where we're just paying the standard monthly charge. Overages - those I’d like to know about but of course we don’t get those kinds of useful emails - we get those when do the books.