Spam bill authors: Misguided criticisms

TalkBack 16 of 42:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Do Not Solicit

Should have been the header for the email. Becuase 'unsubscribe is a no brainer. It suggests that there has 'been a relationship where none had existed. As well the person receiving solicitations should not have to conclude a relationship based on the mechanisms involved within formating,etc of sent corrospondances.

I've seen a couple of late that simply state 'opt-out at the bottom of them within the message.But this most always involves another practical mechanism - that of utilizing the host emails server .....to take care of business.

My suggestion was simply to instill the rights of a person to refuse the solicitation.A mechanism such as a button denoting 'do not solicit from within an email application would not require operating on the emails precondition.

Since the requirement of a 'functioning return email address,is the best of this law.The law does not state 'authentic email return address.

I believe the opt-in idea is an idea with the wrong approach.Opt-in somehow tells that those relationships previously met will continue as a 'legal indemnification of sending them.Most often the origin of opt-in cannot be ascertained,and is the exact reason email advertisements continue to 'breed. However this law does not prevent opt-in from continueing.But they are not completely 'off-the -hook from having a controlling mechanism to now 'stop the solicitation.

Since the adress if it is in fact correct (that is functioning being reachable,from someone),simply putting "no-soliciting''withint he return path is exactly the kind of power the receipient of these needs to have.

However there is a different problem,that some emails have that most on the web are aware of,and the mechanical advantage for this law is something that cannot be acertained from using the 'link at the bottom of the html file.

With this law the empowerment of sending email is still there.And the power to stop it is at least mentioned. But the means of doing so could be better rationalized by simply noticing the 'rights of person to refuse them.As do not solicit.

This is easy.It rational.It should be a general courtesy. Adressing a return adress is a decent start.But this law was seen from the senders point of view I believe.Something reciepients shouldn't have to delegate a 'negotiatable curcumstance to eleviate.


-just talking.

Posted by: ParadigmOdyssey   Posted on: 12/17/03 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Open Standards Technologies Provide the Ingredients for Delivering Security Across the Papa Gino's Enterprise Dell Papa Gino's Holdings Corporation founded by the entrepreneur operates one ... Download Now
• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now
• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now