Get Over It
| Category: E-mail Marketing | Date: 2002-11-29 |
I recently read in NewsFactor Network, that some people are "up in arms" because unsolicited commercial email (spam) has increased from 7 percent a year ago, to 12 to 15 percent today. To help combat this, many ISP's (Internet Service Providers) are installing content filters which automatically relegate anything "they think" is spam to trash, and the message never gets delivered to the intended recipient - you.
Sounds good on the surface, but the problem is that there is no personal judgement at the level of the ISP to determine if a note is spam or not. They have installed content filters that "dump" any email that happens to match the keywords they have installed. How dare they determine what I should receive or not receive. Because a word in the note (or the length of the note) met their reject parameters, they will not deliver it? This is wrong!
Shame on them! I don't know about you, but I don't want my ISP acting like "big brother" on my behalf, and determining what I should read and what I shouldn't.
If you suddenly don't receive what you have been receiving in the past and do want to get, contact your ISP to see if they are using content filters and tell them to "cease and desist".
I do agree that spam is not only a nuisance, but is a daily problem that takes my time to sort through and get rid of the "junk" I didn't ask for, and don't want to get. But let me make that determination. I can set up filters that automatically deletes email I don't wish to get myself. I don't need, nor do I want someone else making that decision on my behalf.
It has been reported to me that some ISPs are blocking newsletters that people have asked to receive. Some investigation turned up that certain words were on their "banned" list and they appeared in the newsletter. Each one of our publications for example, includes a medical column by Dr. Earl Mindell. Will there be words in that column that match the filters the "self appointed guardians of email" have installed - Sure. Will the newsletters exceed some magical length they have determined to be spam - Right again. Is this spam - No!
How about an email constructed in an HTML format? Some ISPs automatically delete anything without text in the body of the email - wrong. Others will delete something sent out as bulk mail where the "To" address is different from the actual address of the person receiving it. Most newsletters with a large circulation don't have the time to personally address each one, and use bulk mail instead, and the addresses are going to be different.
The State of Utah recently passed legislation requiring that all advertisements meet certain criteria. First they have to have "ADV" as the first three letters in the subject of their email. Secondly they have to use a valid email address - as opposed to a forged one. Finally, they have to provide a way to "opt-out" if someone doesn't wish to receive email from that sender in the future. The fines that Utah imposes on the people in that State, who violate these rules, are significant and will be a deterrent.
If the letters "ADV" precede the title in the subject of the note, automatically deleting any email containing those letters yourself is a "piece of cake". But maybe I want to read those ads. If I don't, let me make that decision - not some anti-spam zealot who is trying to force their standards on me.
Now here is the problem. Legislation similar to that in Utah could be enacted nationwide in the USA, and it would cut down on the amount of spam. But sending out spam is big business. If federal laws are enacted in the USA, the major "spam houses" will simply meet those guidelines.
Some suggest that the domains of the spam houses are blocked. Get real! Domains are a dime a dozen. If one gets blocked they simply use another.
So what is the solution? The Utah legislation is a good model, and should be adopted nationwide. The early days of the Internet, which was the sole property of the academicians where spam was anathema, are over. The Internet is ideally suited to support e-commerce, which it does very well. Online advertising is now a way of life.
Now - don't feel I am supporting spam but for goodness sake, I don't want someone else monitoring my email and determining what I should read or not.
How many legitimate emails do we have to "not get", because others are making that decision for us. How many requests for information should get "blown away" because the reply violated some ISP's filters. My feeling is that they should get over it, and not be the self-appointed guardians of my inbox.
About the Author
Bob publishes the free weekly "Your Business" Newsletter Visit his Web Site at adv-marketing.com/business to subscribe. As a bonus, get 40,000 FREE E-Books from Larry Dotson, when you visit http://www.ldpublishing.com
DrOsgoodby@adv-marketing.com
http://adv-marketing.com/business
Sounds good on the surface, but the problem is that there is no personal judgement at the level of the ISP to determine if a note is spam or not. They have installed content filters that "dump" any email that happens to match the keywords they have installed. How dare they determine what I should receive or not receive. Because a word in the note (or the length of the note) met their reject parameters, they will not deliver it? This is wrong!
Shame on them! I don't know about you, but I don't want my ISP acting like "big brother" on my behalf, and determining what I should read and what I shouldn't.
If you suddenly don't receive what you have been receiving in the past and do want to get, contact your ISP to see if they are using content filters and tell them to "cease and desist".
I do agree that spam is not only a nuisance, but is a daily problem that takes my time to sort through and get rid of the "junk" I didn't ask for, and don't want to get. But let me make that determination. I can set up filters that automatically deletes email I don't wish to get myself. I don't need, nor do I want someone else making that decision on my behalf.
It has been reported to me that some ISPs are blocking newsletters that people have asked to receive. Some investigation turned up that certain words were on their "banned" list and they appeared in the newsletter. Each one of our publications for example, includes a medical column by Dr. Earl Mindell. Will there be words in that column that match the filters the "self appointed guardians of email" have installed - Sure. Will the newsletters exceed some magical length they have determined to be spam - Right again. Is this spam - No!
How about an email constructed in an HTML format? Some ISPs automatically delete anything without text in the body of the email - wrong. Others will delete something sent out as bulk mail where the "To" address is different from the actual address of the person receiving it. Most newsletters with a large circulation don't have the time to personally address each one, and use bulk mail instead, and the addresses are going to be different.
The State of Utah recently passed legislation requiring that all advertisements meet certain criteria. First they have to have "ADV" as the first three letters in the subject of their email. Secondly they have to use a valid email address - as opposed to a forged one. Finally, they have to provide a way to "opt-out" if someone doesn't wish to receive email from that sender in the future. The fines that Utah imposes on the people in that State, who violate these rules, are significant and will be a deterrent.
If the letters "ADV" precede the title in the subject of the note, automatically deleting any email containing those letters yourself is a "piece of cake". But maybe I want to read those ads. If I don't, let me make that decision - not some anti-spam zealot who is trying to force their standards on me.
Now here is the problem. Legislation similar to that in Utah could be enacted nationwide in the USA, and it would cut down on the amount of spam. But sending out spam is big business. If federal laws are enacted in the USA, the major "spam houses" will simply meet those guidelines.
Some suggest that the domains of the spam houses are blocked. Get real! Domains are a dime a dozen. If one gets blocked they simply use another.
So what is the solution? The Utah legislation is a good model, and should be adopted nationwide. The early days of the Internet, which was the sole property of the academicians where spam was anathema, are over. The Internet is ideally suited to support e-commerce, which it does very well. Online advertising is now a way of life.
Now - don't feel I am supporting spam but for goodness sake, I don't want someone else monitoring my email and determining what I should read or not.
How many legitimate emails do we have to "not get", because others are making that decision for us. How many requests for information should get "blown away" because the reply violated some ISP's filters. My feeling is that they should get over it, and not be the self-appointed guardians of my inbox.
About the Author
Bob publishes the free weekly "Your Business" Newsletter Visit his Web Site at adv-marketing.com/business to subscribe. As a bonus, get 40,000 FREE E-Books from Larry Dotson, when you visit http://www.ldpublishing.com
DrOsgoodby@adv-marketing.com
http://adv-marketing.com/business
Copyright © 2005-2006 Powered by Custom PHP Programming