On 26 May 2000, 10:56, Martin J. Lang wrote:
> i too was rejected by bluehome...and i used a VALID mailing address and
> telephone number (my work address, which i'm leaving reasonably
> soon...so i don't have anything to lose by having them send spam there).
>
> initially, i reacted as alan and brian and dennis and lee did; that is,
> with suspicion and dismay at this apparent breach of my privacy. but
> then i got to thinking...
>
> perhaps bluehome is following such a stringent course of confirming its
> registrants in the interest of PREVENTING spammers from signing up and
> abusing their service and then re-signing up after getting booted.
This occurred to me, but it would be an irregular approach compared to
all the other services with which we have signed.
However, I have signed up for free web hosting services that did manual
checks.
> while it's true that "savvy internet users" (like ourselves) would use
> false or doctored information to sign up in the interest of protecting
> our privacy, it is even truer that spammers will definitely use false
> information.
Agree. :-)
> and bluehome may be willing to lose a few privacy-aware customers if
> doing so helps them keep away the hordes of spammers. witness the fate
> of hotpop.com, a service that i used to use long ago, before it was
> destroyed by spammers.
It has always been a bone of contention for me to be punished by
Internet companies due to the actions of spammers. Companies tend to
make things more inconvenient for the innocent majority than they do to
the minority spammers.
> we all know how difficult it is for these providers to offer free smtp
> when the potentials for abuse are so huge. it is possible that bluehome
> is merely trying to protect itself (and its valid customers) from
> suffering the fate that others have previously. i see their actions as
> a sort of potential method of establishing some accountability among
> their users: "you trust us with your personal data and we'll trust you
> with out smtp servers."
Plausible, but I ask you to consider who are the customers of
Bluehome.net? Us users of the service? How can we be considered a
customer if we are not buying any services or products? Perhaps
potential customers, as the bluehome TOS mentions possibly charging us
for the service, in the future.
As it stands now, since we are not being charged nor subjected to ad
supported services, we have to consider that we have the account
through the benevolence of Bluehome.net. For that I applaud them. I
too give of my time and money to others in the Internet. However, even
with the noble cause here, I still reserve the right to protect my
privacy by limiting the information I furnish them. Bluehome may be
doing me a big favor, but they have yet to earn my trust.
> now, let me say that i don't necessarily endorse this policy. in fact,
> i'm actually going to trash my application, because i still don't feel
> comfortable enough giving out more detailed information.
LOL...don't trash it yet. Reply to it and just tell them simply, "The
information furnished is correct." :-)
> but i did want to publicize this "glass half empty" viewpoint and
> solicit any reactions.
I think you make some valid points, Martin, but experience has taught
me to not fill in my true identity for free services. I know that
ultimately nothing is free and there will be a price to pay in the long
run. I do not want the price to be lose of my privacy.
Alan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
