Re: Water tight opt-in (yet another FUSSP)

On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:58 AM, Barry Shein <[email protected]> wrote:

>=20
> The reasons you list, and more, are why I've long advocated a much
> more restrictive definition of spam and why I'm usually kind of
> laughed off the stage when I try to describe it but in a nutshell if
> it's not being (significantly) paid for and is intended to make a
> commercial entity money directly or indirectly then it's spam.
>=20
> Obviously one can write 500 pages splitting hairs on that but you get
> my point I hope even if you don't agree, a much, much more draconian
> definition.

If you=92re considering email that people have asked to receive,
are happy receiving and which all entities involved with it are
quite happy to be involved with the delivery of as =93spam=94, then
you=92re far enough from anything remotely operational as to be
entirely irrelevant to actual problems.

Laughing you off the stage is the only reasonable response
to that line of argument, I=92m afraid.

Cheers,
  Steve

-
This is the asrg mailing list.  To change your subscription settings, see
http://lists.services.net/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr/domain=3Dlists.gurus.org