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

On Jan 4, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Barry Shein <[email protected]> wrote:

>=20
> On January 4, 2014 at 13:43 [email protected] (Steve Atkins) wrote:
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> If you'd been following the discussion you would know that the note I
> was responding to listed several areas of grey covering a wide range
> currently considered by unilateral fiat to be email you are happy
> with, such as when you order a book on UI design and the seller sends
> you nearly daily pitches for every vaguely related book their fuzzy
> matchers can possibly come up, as well as passing your contact info on
> to many others they consider partners and leaving it up to you to try
> to opt-out of each of them.

Some of those concerns are certainly valid - but if you want people
to take your views on them seriously you might want to rethink
your terminology. Bundling *all* email which has the potential of
generating revenue from the sender - including everything from 1:1 mail
from my sales rep at one of my suppliers through to botnet generated
malware -  into a single concept is unlikely to lead to useful discussion
either.

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