I could'nt possibly resist this one...:-)
I think the points Phil makes are excellent. They are all valid, particularly the ones about removal and being passed on to third parties. We all have to realise that in a commercially-driven society commerce surrounds us. It is a part of everything we do now, and the only way to get away from it is a very sharp implement along a large artery. What about the Crisco lady that came to my door the other day? That is surely a far more insidious means of offering products than email - email can be block deleted, and though the Chrisco woman can get the door shut in her face, that is far worse (in terms of ones day) than a block delete. And where do we draw the line? What about the Awake people? I know my dad has had Awake people for decades now - just couldn't face the prospect of telling these ... (expletives removed) people that he wasn't interested and really didn't want to buy their magazines. Why don't we legislate against that? I would certainly vote for that over some highly directed and responsible "spamming" such as what Jason is doing.
Moi dve kopeki
Anton
Some CLUG members also run businesses and use email as a business tool, including email newsletters.
I do not consider an email spam if, 1. The sender is clearly identified and a physical address is given. 2. That I know that I will be removed from a mailing list if this is requested. 3. That the sender had good reason to think that I might be interested. 4. That my address was not obtained indiscriminately from a purchased mailing list, i.e. any such list had been carefully reviewed. 5. That I know that my address will not be passed onto a third party.
Phil.
