William X. Walsh a �crit:
>
> On 16-Jan-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
> >> And let me tell you that a huge number of those people in the NSI database
> >> will
> >> level accusations of spam for doing such a thing.
> >>
> >> For NSI, or any organization, to do such a thing would be foolhardy, and
> >> would
> >> be unlikely to have any measurable result, especially balanced against the
> >> administrative nightmare it would create with all the complaints and "What
> >> is
> >> this?" type emails it would generate.
> >
> > Maybe you're right. But InterNIC has the right to communicate with its
> > registrants. It sends them notices and bills and such. Couldn't it notify
> > them officially that a certain poll needed to be taken in order to determine
> > certain future operating parameters of its registration operation? I don't
> > see anything incorrect about a company polling its customers, do you?
>
> You would think so.
>
> I've had to deal with this issue first hand in the past, and all I can say is I
> developed a very very dim view of the antispam activists as a result.
>
> The position tends to be that if the company did not inform the customers they
> were subject to receiving non-essential emails (which include bills) then it is
> considered spam.
>
> I am currently working on a set of terms of services and service agreements and
> am adding language into it that lets the users know they are subject to
> receiving such emails from us, and basically if they don't like it, don't do
> business with us. And I'm not talking about advertisements for other services,
> or letting others use our customer lists for marketing. Just things like
> Monthly Service Updates, etc. I'm dotting and i's and crossing the t's on this
> one.
>
> The anti spam activists will turn against any cause that they feel was
> promoting their cause via spam, regardless of how tenuous the allegation is,
> and will be very vocal about it. There is no appeasing them once they get
> going on this, and they feed on each other like a nasty virus.
>
> And I am very anti-spam myself, but these groups are out of control. I had to
> deal with them when I was Abuse Director at Monolith.
Oh. I see. I didn't realize it had gotten to that point. Frankly, I can't
see what they can object to in a company polling its customers, but I guess
these people are fanatics. Probably because they're so ineffective against
real spam, they have to pick on the un-guilty.
If I undertsand you correctly, then, NSI could only do it if they had
included in the original domain name application form an info that the
applicant had to agree to rceive "non-essential" mail. Somehow that seems a
little silly, considering how many websites have a registration procedure
where they don't say a thing about releasing info to third parties, and then
give out your address and you get spammed to death. The financial sites all
do it, and get away with it. It's strictly caveat emptor in that world.
I never saw a real discussion of this by NSI, so I've queried Chuck Gomes on
this question. I'd be very interested to see what he says.
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
