Subject: RE: [Asrg] ESPC Proposal

From: "Olson, Margaret" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:15:39 -0400

You consent to a mailing because you expect certain content. If the content
isn't what you expected, isn't it spam? Don't you want to hold the marketer
responsible?

Margaret.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 8:28 PM
To: ASRG list
Subject: Re: [Asrg] ESPC Proposal

On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 05:58:12PM -0400, Olson, Margaret wrote

> From a user point of view, spam is mail I didn't want to get,
> and that is based on the mail content. Marketers are careful with
> their targeting off-line. They (and their email service providers)
> can be and should be just as careful on-line.

  *WRONG* *WRONG* *WRONG*  It's about consent, not content.  I don't
care whether you're selling porn, whether you're a religious nutcase
who's trying to save my soul, a politician who's trying to save my
country, or a business claiming it can save me a few bucks.  Unsolicited
Bulk Email (UBE for short) is the problem.  They're all alike as far as
I'm concerned.  I don't appreciate being your "target".  If I didn't
specifically opt in *AND CONFIRM* don't send it.  Which syllable in the
word "NO" do you not understand ?

-- 
Walter Dnes <[email-masked]>
Email users are divided into two classes;
1) Those who have effective spam-blocking
2) Those who wish they did
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Chris Lewis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:01:03 -0400

Olson, Margaret wrote:
> You consent to a mailing because you expect certain content. If the 
> content isn't what you expected, isn't it spam?

No.  It was misrepresented, but it isn't spam.

Spam is where there was no consent.

---

From: "Tom Betz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:59:32 -0400

On 27 Apr 2003 at 21:15, Margaret Olson wrote:
> 
> You consent to a mailing because you expect certain content. 

The reason why I may have consented or not consented to receive a 
mailing is irrelevant to whether or not the mailing is spam.  Only 
the fact or absence of consent is relevant.

If I did NOT consent in advance to receive a mailing, it is spam, 
regardless of the content.  And the only way you may vbe certain that 
I have indeed consented to receive a mailing is to positively confirm 
my supposed request BEFORE you start sending me anything else.

That issue of prior consent is the key issue, the issue you at 
ROVING.COM continue to attempt to evade; this ESPC PR campaign 
appears simply to be the most recent hand-waving effort.  Unless you 
start thinking and acting in terms of consent, nothing you do will 
get you out of the thousands of doghouses you have gotten yourself 
into.

--  
| I very strongly recommend   | Tom Betz, Generalist   |
| against ever sending me any | Want to send me email? |
| "courtesy copies" of posts. | First, read this page: | 
|     <http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/mailterms.shtml>    |

---

From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 20:38:34 -0700

On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:15:39 -0400 
Margaret Olson <Olson> wrote:

> content isn't what you expected, isn't it spam? Don't you want to hold
> the marketer responsible?

I would be content if I could simply state to the universe, "Do not send
me mail which attempts to market to me," and have reasonable expectation
of that election being respected.  That simple: No marketing mail, no
exceptions, no discussion, no appeal.

Sadly, that's not possible.

-- 
J C Lawrence                
---------(*)                Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. 
[email-masked]               He lived as a devil, eh?		  
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg