> True, objectively, but there is a significant subjective difference.
> In one way I had the opportunity to see the mail, and didn't, and the
> other way something hid it from me without my explicit per-message
> consent.
This is a huge issue with large scale systems like Brightmail, which
provides filtering services for ISPs. We have a licensee who got
caught this way - with no bounce or other rejection messages they
had _no_ way of knowing that all of their mailing list subscribers at
($BIGISP) were simply not getting their mail, until suddenly they got
a rash of complaints from said subscribers at $BIGISP saying "what
has happened to our mailings??" Because, of course, as you point
out, their mailing list mail was (worse than 'hidden') simply
undelivered to them, not only without their consent, but in direct
contravention of their stated desires (all of our licensee's mail is
confirmed opt-in, so the $BIGISP was failing to deliver mail that their
users had explicitly requested and confirmed). [Fortunately, a call to
the $BIGISP pointing out exactly that had an effect, as it nearly
always does, but that's hardly the point...the false positive problem
is a huge one, especially for mailing list owners - and made larger
because they often have *no* idea how much of their mail is *not*
being delivered!]
Another of our licensees, TidBits, experienced as much as a *10%*
delivery failure rate when one issue contained the word "Viagra"
once. [That was before they were a Habeas licensee. :-)]
You can read about that here:
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06866
Macslash.com had to change over to Macslash.org when their
registration for Macslash.com *expired*, and someone grabbed it,
because their ISP, mac.com, bounced their registration renewal
notice as "spam".
For those who think that the false positive situation isn't a problem...
Anne
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
