Congress poised for antispam vote

TalkBack 35 of 67:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

Understand: I'm only speaking of how I would have this situation of 'spam (non-solicited comercial email)done. There are other variations that are consideration of ''spam''e.g. having too many posted replies of the same origin etc.

.....
But as it is when you receive an email,you have two initiatives only, ''access the solicitors address"and using the 'unsubscribe'/ that is by law listed to be a present usage.

As far as your email address,your person,can only do this by using the relationships between you and the email sender.

This is a total stranger to yourself,you don't know how the email address got into their acknowlegement,- for example,but the only 2 things you can do is:

-these all involve 'opening the email by the way.

1.Finding the link within the email,and 'unsubscribing (however this got to be here)

or

2.Delete the email

....Either one has done you no favors because :
a.You had to open the email,access the emails site,use the controls from that site,or within the htmls 'links. Note that a lot of emails simply box the unscribe so that you are basically cascading into another site looking for links to opt out,perilous between 'pop up ads,spyware,and so on.
b.deleting the email doesn't tell the solicitor to stop.

....with a do not solicit aplying
a.you dont have to open an email
b.you dont have to access the senders site.
c.you cannot be controled by the variations involved in the mechanisms of the senders spam.
d. you do not have to give your email address to the solicitor (with my suggestion above).

....
What makes this a contractual relationship in my view is the fact that the proportion of a persons initiative is based on a fact of reception of an email,you as a person have nothing to be a relationship to.
Your machine controls are completely at your initiative to your privacy 'never at the structure of the emails solicitation.

Creating a law with includes an optin/opt out mechanism implies that your control is that explicit of the sender - its a 'legality loop that advertisers give themself that as a premise for business is fine,-as long as business is the benifactor of it.

Any business,or person should be free to legitimately portray a 'do not solicit order.

As I see it,the FTC is simply utilizing 'advantage,between 'business and 'person of use within that concept of opt in/opt out, becuase with the 'lawful power to do so,this is what they will do !.

So at its inspection it looks fine to business.However it is a non-redundant,not so refined joke on themselves.In that it is an underhanded 'contract of wich devoids the 'person of use,from the controlling mechanism via relationship with the 'non-solicited email sender.

And the problem is within the 'law is the order of the day,..no soliciting...

It isn't the subjective placement of business to further interogate persons with email inboxes of their 'right to make business.

I would say it is a privacy thing.Its just an easily done 'courtesy. Since email was not made to be a business corner of the market....to serve business..it is their at the use of the person owning the email.

Complex things in simple places. A few steps up another poster posted the result of what opt out does for email recipients.

-just talking.; Posted by: ParadigmOdyssey Posted on: 11/21/03 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use