It is not spam, people are expecting to hear about the followup meeting and they will be disappointed if they do not get the email. SPAM is unsolicited Commercial email. The suggested message is neither unsolicited nor commercial.
However Leo is the only one with a list of the attendees - the database will be inaccurate as it does not match the actual attendees. Leo?? On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:54:35 +1200 Jason Greenwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I for one think it is ridiculous to try and contact my installees...I > didn't keep a file of them nor their contact details and I certainly > don't want to try and go back through the paperwork to find out. > > I much prefer the "spam" idea, though I would hardly characterise it as > such. > > Regards, > > Jason > > Gareth Williams wrote: > > Christopher Sawtell wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:59, Fisher, Robert (FXNZ CHC) wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Here here!!! > >>> > >>> Robert > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Gareth Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Sent: Wednesday, 26 March 2003 01:53 p.m. > >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Subject: Re: Post InstallFest fix-ups Meeting. > >>> > >>> Christopher Sawtell wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> If you did an install at the 'fest which went awry please tell the > >>>> client > >>>> > >>>> about this meeing because we are not going to do a spamming session -- > >>>> however small -- to the InstallFest registrants. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I am actually in favour of the follow up email idea (and I take it you > >>> are opposed on principle?). > >>> > >> > >> Having been literally hounded off an email address by megabytes per > >> month of total junk soon after Al Gore wrecked the Internet as we knew > >> it, yes, totally actually. > >> > >> Personal contact is far superior to spam of any kind imho, and this is > >> the reason why I suggested that the installers contacted their clients. > >> > > > > We all get spam, and nobody likes it. That isn't to be debated. I > > personally get several spam emails per day, many of them (ahem) > > "distasteful". Many more of them large HTML emails - one I even got > > recently (advertising a motorbike IIRC) actually came with a 400kb > > attachment! (the manual for it or something, or so it claimed. I didn't > > bother trying to read it) grrr. I hate spam. Who doesn't? > > > > But my point, I think, was that I do not believe this "follow up" to be > > spam. If I was one of the punters who came along on the day, I imagine I > > would be pleased to get a follow up email, especially if I had run into > > problems since the installfest. "Spam" is the stuff that they would hit > > "delete" on without reading. This is not the same, IMO. > > > >> If you or anybody else has the software and motivation to send > >> multiple emails to the clientelle, please feel free to do it. > >> > >> > > Ah, I wasn't disagreeing from a practical perspective. If it is > > impractical to send these emails, that is another matter entirely. I > > imagined that however the first emails were sent out (the > > pre-installfest ones... didn't someone do that? Was it you Zane?), it > > would be a simple matter of changing the message and repeating the > > procedure that sent the first lot. If this can't be done easily (by > > whoever has the database?), or nobody wants to do it, then it simply > > doesn't get done. No big deal. I can certainly see there could be > > practical problems, I don't disagree there. > > > > Incidentally, I respect your argument against for reasons of principle > > (equally as valid as arguments of practicality, if not more so). I just > > don't happen to agree in this instance ;-) > > > > Cheers, > > Gareth > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Nick Rout Barrister & Solicitor Christchurch, NZ Ph +64 3 3798966 Fax + 64 3 3798853 http://www.rout.co.nz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
