Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scot

Spam 'Charity Stamp'

Recommended Posts

What does everyone think about this spam "charity stamp" idea?http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20030320S0003As a small mailer, it concerns me mightily. I can't afford to pay even .005 cents additionally per message to send out a newsletter. People don't realize how expensive this is already.I like the idea of charging real spammers money, but I think this has to be hooked in to the opt-in process somehow so that legitimate newsletter publishers and others like them don't have to pay a dime. It's just not fair to tax newsletters for spam.Read the article, it's not long. What do you think?-- Scot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a big difference between spam and email people want. If they can not distinguish between the two they need to scrap their idea and move in another direction. This approach penalizes legitimate bulk emailers and the people that want it. This harms the recipient more than spam. Perfect example of the cure being worse than the disease.And me being ever cynical of big business, I am just afraid it would be opening the door to charging everyone for sending email.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right if it is e-mail that you legit signed up for than it is not spam. What they need is for people like Scott is a paticular branding in the email so the program can recognize it is not spam. Some how matches IDs or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first blush, I like it, but what I don't fully understand is how they would separate the "known" from the "unknown" recepient.ie, when signing up for SNL, I even went through an authentication process (you sly dog, you), which should make me a "known recepiant", for which you should need no stamp. But how would you separate bulk mailers from by-request mailers out there in cyber-space. The worst case scenario is that everyone would have to have permission from this NFP organization to mail. :) :) :) :) On second blush, I hate it. That's not what the WWW is about. I don't have the "situational awareness" that a lot of those folks in "Jam Spam" have, but I think it is really going to come down to ISP's; I don't think it is going to be managable on a broader scale without a lot of big brother - type interference.I think I should somehow notify my ISP that I have signed up for a publication, and the ISP opens up for that publication. If thye publisher blows it, sending out unsolicited mail and generating complaints, the ISP closes to that Publisher. I lose the newsletter, perhaps (there are currently 4 ways to reach me via email), and the publisher loses those subscribers, Might make a publisher think before taking an action like that, or allowing others to use the approved address, code, whatever.On any broader scale, the advent of "internet cops" is close by, and I don't like that AT ALL.Last thought...the Ziff Davis org uses a different return address on EVERY edition of EVERY publication that they send out, so they can NEVER be white-listed. but they are easily "filtered". That kind of behavior by publishers must also stop. It is "ego-centric" and not compatable with the spirit of cooperation that will be neccesary to make a rational system work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...