What really constitutes spam?

[aspen]

At the end of the day law dictates what spam is. All unsolicited mail is not spam.

No, at the end of the day your host determines what is spam. Read their policy, if you break it be prepared for the consequences. If you're not advertising a website then it'll be your email provider.

[robert loch]

'No, at the end of the day your host determines what is spam. Read their policy, if you break it be prepared for the consequences. If you're not advertising a website then it'll be your email provider.'

No, part way through the day your host defines what spam is. At the end of the day the law does. Yes, your host can kick up a fuss, boot you out, even insist that you pay them cash for spamming from their server. However, at the end of the day, it is the law that decides whether compensation is paid. Remember if an ISP blacklists you, you can sue.

Can this thread get anymore pedantic. I think so ;-)

I personally believe that you should only send email to people (b2c) who have specifically signed up to receive the emails. By that I mean <b>no list renting, no list swapping, no list buying,</b> only send mail to people that actually ask for it. I've never sent bulk mail to a list, other that a companies inhouse optin list - I bet a few of you spam purists have?

Now this proposal has been made to the industry, and it has been rejected. They know as well as I do that when a user allows one company to sent them mail they don't expect/want their email address handed out to 20 more companies, even if the small print allows for that to happen.

Why is this important. Well, to my mind nearly everyone involved in email marketing is in fact spamming (sorry participating in permission marketing, yeah right). With that being the case, the hardcore feel justified in continuing. More importantly, it is the legitimate marketing lobby that are actually the ones preventing the law being updated to allow spamming to be properly dealt with. The 'legitimate' industry itself is appalling, yet you don't get people up in arms at them. The difference is, ask about permission marketing (5th generation email lists - spam) and you will get advice from all on this board, ask what spam is, and you will get screamed at. It frustrates me to see such a stereotypical response. Surely we can do better than that?

edited----

Here's an example of what I mean, it just makes me laugh.

http://www.optinsource.com/index.php...e641a60ed423a2

'Opt-in Source is the largest permission-based e-mail marketing solution provider in the world with access to over 150 million opt-in e-mail recipients. Through our qualified provider ad network Opt-in Source enables advertisers to reach targeted audiences for direct e-mail marketing campaigns, co-registration acquisition and online survey registration with guaranteed response on every campaign.'

Permission based ??????? I don't know of 1 person who would want their email on such a list/network. According to the industry, there are millions out there.

[Hierophant]

Originally posted by robert loch
Permission based ??????? I don't know of 1 person who would want their email on such a list/network. According to the industry, there are millions out there.

Actually, I personally have signed up for several different categories from Postmaster direct that I recieve mailings from on a regular basis. It is optin and they haven't sold my name to anyone else because I only get emails from them on the account I setup just for that.

[Shane M]

I think that at the end of the day the consumer, be it business or personal, determines what is spam. I report 25-30 spams a week to spam cop on many subjects. Many of them are in no way related to web marketing, 10 or so each week are. I take a different tack at times with semi-targeted mails I dont request. If it looks to me like a real person wrote the mail and actually took the time to look at my site, I usually just delete it. I still would not use them to promote my company. On the other hand if you send me an obviously pre generated mail that comes to every email listed on my site (all of which dump into my box) telling me jhow you got my name (that is not even used in your letter or on the site) from my web site I directly forward it to spam cop.

[Herbster]

I just can't get worked up about reporting people.

Once, a guy was trying to rip people off in a public forum. I exposed his scam. He sent emails threatening to kill me. I reported him. The threats stopped.

Last year, I received an email promoting kiddie porn. I reported him to his host - as I'm sure a lot of other people did - and his site vanished within the hour. I filed another report with the FBI. They replied, but I don't know the outcome.

Yeah. Email rippers, mass email spammers - they're the scum of the earth.

I have more selfish/paranoid interests.

A couple of years ago, something came across my desk that I wanted to let a few people know about. Today, I can't remember what it was, but I wasn't selling anything. I sent the email with maybe 10 BCCs.

I received a terse "remove me from your list" email and quickly replied, virtually jumping up and down, waving my hand. "Hello! Hello! Remember me? We met over at xyz.com and talked about hoola-hoops and then you sent me information about fishing lures. Remember? Remember?"

The person replied laughing. "Oh yeah! How ya been? Didn't recognize your name. Thought it was just spam."

Now, what if that person had opted to report me to my ISP?

Trolls have ruined many usenet groups by reporting "spam" violations for URL postings that do not violate the groups rules - yet many people have lost referral accounts, email accounts and ISP accounts just because some dysfuntional fool has nothing better to do that try to create trouble.

I'm not saying that everyone who reports spam falls into that category. Apples do not equal oranges. I'm confident that many of you involved in the marketing industry have valid reasons for filing reports and pure motives. But the policies that have been implemented to deal with email abuse can themselves be abused. That worries me.

OK. End of rant.

[robert loch]

'Actually, I personally have signed up for several different categories from Postmaster direct that I recieve mailings from on a regular basis. It is optin and they haven't sold my name to anyone else because I only get emails from them on the account I setup just for that.'

OK, fair enough, I'm being a little over dramatic. Yes of course there is ligitimate opt in email marketing, and actually the site I single out above does on the surface appear to follow a reasonable policy. Personally I would prefer them to better define what exactly they constitute optin to be.

However in my experience the majority of network email marketing tend to be a free for all, with decent publications often mixed with spam lists or swapped lists. I'm very much an advocate of double opt-in, which is something the industry is against.

I do think that the industry really needs to get to gribs with itself soon, or risk email dying as a marketing option. Rogue spammers will always exist, it is the middle ground spammers that I want to see brought in line - the ones that don't consider themselves spammers, but whose actions are doing so much to facilitate spamming.

btw, has anyone tried Spamnet. http://www.cloudmark.com/products/spamnet/

[Hierophant]

Originally posted by robert loch
btw, has anyone tried Spamnet. http://www.cloudmark.com/products/spamnet/

I am going to try it out. I have 20 or so pop3 email address that I check regularly and get 99% of my spam through the emails for these forums.

[micmol]

Can someone please explain why this thread of all threads can gets so emotional.

Let's face it, unsolicited email is a very emotional subject. I hear the same things about junkmail in the post.

Ladies and Gentlemen I though WW3 had started on the net, I was marginally concerned.

Regards

Micmol

[Herbster]

Originally posted by micmol
Can someone please explain why this thread of all threads can gets so emotional.
Regards

Micmol

I think/hope that is why we are here.
To separate the rational from the irrational.

[aspen]

Well on one hand you have people who more or less rely on this to make their money.

On the other hand you have everyone else who hates spam. Dredging through all the crap in my inboxes takes up my time and it can make me lose an important message. Of course the arrogance of some of the people who do spam is what really gets on my nerves. And before anyone jumps the gun I'm not labeling anyone here as a spammer, a facist, a dinosaur-sympathizer, or anything else. I'm speaking in general.

[micmol]

Interesting call Herbster.

So it kinda begs the question "who is being rational/irrational" in this thread?

Aspen I love this quote

Well on one hand you have people who more or less rely on this to make their money.

On the other hand you have everyone else who hates spam.

Kind Regards

Micmol

[Hierophant]

I think the problem is that the people on the receiving end see spam as a waste of money. It eats up bandwidth which costs money. It eats up software resources which costs money. And most importantly it eats up time which not only costs money but is not recoverable. You can quickly grow to hate things that cost you money and don't have any returns.

I mean how many emails do you need about HGH, Breast Enlargment pills, hair loss treatments, sexual aids, porn sites, life insurance, stupid penny stocks, and moving millions of dollars for Nigeria? This doesn't even mention the spam that might be looked at if it weren't for all the other crap that shows up on a daily basis. So it all gets filtered out and deleted.

[robert loch]

'Well on one hand you have people who more or less rely on this to make their money.

On the other hand you have everyone else who hates spam. '

I think that you need 3 hands :-) True spammers could be dealt with so much more effectively if email marketing groups did not block certain anti-spam policies from becoming law. It is an impossible thing to fully prevent, but let's create some form of disincentive.