From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui(_at_)plaidworks(_dot_)com>
As written, that is a bad definition, because it allows and even
encourages literally hundreds millions of advertisers to individually
ask you to opt-out.
right now, that's still an improvement over the status quo. Until we
GET to that point, trying to deal with that kind of consent issue
doesn't really matter. and your numbers blow the issue well out of
proportion.
If you look at the numbers from outside a job in the nascent "legitimate"
spam industry, you see that would be worse than the status quo. There
are only about 1500 serious spammers today. When they are terminated
by governments and the obvious criminal associations fade from bulk
mail offers, we will have at least 1-3 dozen daily important offers
and opt-out "requests" from the Fortune 50,000,000.
As I've said more than once including in the message that Mr. Von
Rospach partly quoted, I think the solution for the current problem
of fly by night and criminal spammers will come from governments,
and that solution will make problems related to other sorts of
"e-marketers" worse.
There are more than 20,000,000 corporations registered in the U.S.
At least 1% of them might reasonably send you one opt-out request per
year. That would put 54 opt-out requests into your mailbox every day.
That is a significantly higher spam-load than many and I think most
end-users suffer today.
"Legitimate" spammers would be happy to send us as much unsolicited
and unwanted junk email as we now get in paper. I receive 1 to 2 dozen
pieces of paper junk every day. I do not want the same in my email box.
Potentially, ever person in China could choose to call my
house to wish me happy birthday, too. I don't propose legislation to
prevent it.
That is silly, irrelevant nonsense.
You're trying to turn e-marketers into spammers again, Vernon, and
merging the two problems into one. that's a failed strategy, and I
won't go there.
I think Mr. Von Rospach knows that is a gross misrepresentation of
my positions.
If you are an "e-marketer," there are more than two spam problems.
However, for most of us, there is only one spam problem, large amounts
of junk in our mailboxes. We will require more than one solution for
the parts of the problem, but the problem is solitary.
There are many sorts of "e-marketers," and many are not spammers.
Some are spammers flogging sexual performance enhancements while others
want to sell computers. Some spammers use forged headers and try to
hide, while other spammers are completely up-front and open. Some
"e-marketers" are members in good standing of the DMA and others have
had their efforts interrupted by being involuntary guests of state
and local governments.
Some "e-marketers" make honest efforts to avoid sending spam, while
others that I think are DMA members are the opposite. I keep mentioning
spam from Dell Computers, but I consider Dell one of the reasonably
careful "e-marketers." American Express and Verisign/NetworkSolutions
(before or after that merger and divorce) are examples of unvarnished
corporate spammers among "e-marketers." Dell is an example of the
fact that absolutely every large outfit will occassionally err and
send spam. (perhaps I'm wrong; I've also had problems with unsolicited
FAX ads from Dell.) Only organiziations that are too small to have
any turnover in their marketing and sales organizations can hope to
never make a mistake. Contrary to some kooks and to Mr. Von Rospach's
efforts to tar those of us who do not like unsolicited bulk email
advertising, that does not imply that all outfits are spammers any
more than the fact that everyone breaks traffic laws makes all of us
convicted felons or even merely reckless drivers.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg