At 01:58 PM 2002-05-23 -0600, Mike Avery wrote:
>That's a pretty tough test. If I applied it to my
>incoming mail, I wouldn't have been able to do my last
>job. I was an editor for a technical magazine. If I
>didn't get notes from people who wanted to become
>writers or to write for us, we wouldn't have had new
>writers. If I didn't get notes from vendors I hadn't
>dealt with before, we wouldn't have been able to review
>any products except those we already knew about.
Absolutely not a problem to apply this test to your situation:
You put your address on a web site, with advanced permission for writers to
contact you with articles and vendors to contact you with individually
composed proposals regarding products to review.
This does not allow people to spam you based on anything that the happen to
find randomly on the site, with anything that they happen to send you.
I have a web site that lists my mailing list contact addresses - the
-request addresses, the addresses that people are to send to for posting to
the lists, and the list topics.
There is implicit permission for people to send subscribe commands to those
addresses. Not random advertisements, political statements, etc.
Problems with the mail system go to postmaster. Not
random.....etc. Problems with people being twits at addresses that are
associated with my domains go to abuse@.. and so forth. Lots of us have to
publish lots of addresses all of the time --- or we have to monitor
addresses that are implicitly well known. This does not imply permission
to abuse the published address, yet it is simple, in my opinion, for the
reasonable person to understand what the intended purpose of the
publication is.
And, when the bounds are overstepped by accident, (and not as part of an
automated process), it really is not that much of a problem. The serious
problem occurs when the abuse is automated and when hundred of thousands of
addresses are randomly abused in a single operation.
>Actually, I think it's a pretty simplistic test. I draw
>the line at unsolicited mail sent to many people. If
>someone has a reasonable expectation that I will be
>interested in a piece of email they want to send to me
>as an individual, I am usually willing to receive it. Even
>if I hadn't heard of them before. I view this as part of
>the price I pay for being in the public eye. You say you
>aren't in the public eye? I beg to differ - you just put
>yourself there....
And there is some customary implicit agreement to receive off list mail
(although not list commands, please) that is related to your posting when
you post to a list, and so on and so forth. There is no permission granted
to receive advertising, massmails of any sort that is extended by posting
to a list.
>Mike
>--
>Mike Avery
>MAvery@mail.otherwhen.com
>ICQ: 16241692 AOL IM:
>MAvery81230
>Phone: 970-642-0282
>* Spam is for lusers who can't get business any other
>way *
>
>A Randomly Selected Thought For The Day:
>Newsflash: Microsoft announces Visual Edlin for
>Windows.
--
War is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is
worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to
fight, nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety, is a
miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made so by the
exertions of better men than himself. -- John Stuart Mill
Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com
References:
|
|
