At 4:06 PM -0800 2/28/03, David Van Nuys, Ph. D. wrote:
...An article in Monday's San Francisco Chronicle described Senator Debra Bowen's Bill, SB12, which seeks to impose penalties on e-mail spammers.Do you believe that there is a need to protect legitimate research activity?
I'd agree with prior comments, that what you're proposing is no different from commercial spam. (Although I would have been gentler in my response. Come on, folks, he has an honest concern, and deserves respect for airing it. I'm sure many of his colleagues don't give a damn about who they spam.)
Certainly bulk, unsolicited email would be a cheaper method of polling than others. And I understand your concern that "opt-in" lists comprise a wholly self-selected group.
Harris Interactive (the people who do the Harris polls) got listed in the MAPS RBL, sued, and lost back in 2000. They then converted to confirmed opt-in.
http://mail-abuse.org/pressreleases/2001-08-21.html
"During the last year, Harris Interactive conducted many tests and found that confirmed opt-in panel members give far more thoughtful and comprehensive survey responses than non- confirmed opt-in panelists."
And yes, I have reported people sending me surveys to spamcop, getting them blocked in the process. It is still about consent, not content.
Bomb Texas - - - They have oil too
Read why: http://oriez.org/topten.html
_______________________________________________
spamcon-general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.spamcon.org/mailman/listinfo/spamcon-general#subscribers
Subscribe, unsubscribe, etc: Use the URL above or send "help" in body
of message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact administrator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
