The Scum Of Email

[ihelpyou]

Good article:

http://www.clickz.com/em_mkt/opt/article.php/934761

I get these types of emails constantly. THEY ARE SPAM. Period. I did NOT opt-in. Instead, these sleezebags send me an "introductory" thing that I Have to opt-out of or they keep on sending them. BULL****. That is SPAM.

My newsletter is strictly opt-in. Not Spam. NO addressses are bought either.

NO one should buy an email list. Grow up people.

[Alan Perkins]

Some interesting terminology in there, and opinions.

Personally, if I give someone my business card at a trade show, I expect to be put on their mailing list. I also expect to be able to get off the mailing list easily if I want to.

The phrase double-opt-out is used in an entirely negative way. I use double-opt-out to mean something totally different, in an entirely positive way!

Here's what I mean by double-opt-in and double-opt-out

double-opt-in: you need to perform two actions to opt-in. The first action (be it handing over your business card, sending an e-mail or filling in a form) causes an opt-in-request e-mail to be sent to you. Your second action is then to respond to that e-mail (ideally using unique information contained in the e-mail) in order to confirm your participation in the list.

double-opt-out: the opposite. You perform some action to causes an opt-out-request e-mail to be sent to you. You then reply to this e-mail (ideally using unique information contained in the e-mail) to confirm opt-out.

The reason double-opt-out is useful is that it is quite easy to unsubscribe other people from simple mailing lists if you know they are members of that list and you know their e-mail address...

Does anybody else have different meanings for these terms?

[ihelpyou]

My Problem with all this Alan is simple:

I get Many emails saying something like this:

"I understand you may be interested in our product. This is a ONE time mailing to you as you are able to unsubscribe from the link below and will be removed from the list."


That IS SPAM. Period. I never opted-in. I have to opt-out from something I did not ask for in the first place. If I do not opt-out, or simply did not open the first email, this person continues to SPAM me until I opt-out. Not right.

[ihelpyou]

And absolutely not, just because I give someone my business card does not give them permission to put me on their mailing list.

It does give them permission to PERSonally contact me because I asked them to. It does not give them permission to send me weekly emails from a list for their newsletter.

Actually, I have a couple clients right now who think that just because they are a client, and just because they have correspondence from me now, they think I opted-in for their newsletter. NOT. They are spamming me. Period.

[Alan Perkins]

Hey Doug, totally agree with your first response. Read my post carefully. I am not talking at all about their opt-out e-mail, which is spam for sure! It's just that I always thought double-opt-out was as I described above.

It seems to me a whole problem with spam is the use of the same words to mean different things. (e.g "cloaking"). "Double-opt-out" is the latest one on me. For me, a really good mailing list would be double-opt-in AND double-opt-out. That's a contradiction using the terminology in that article.

[Hope]

Sorry Alan, I cannot agree with you about double opt-out. If I send an email or click on a link to opt out, I do NOT want to hear from you ever again, period, end of discussion.

What you are suggesting would be the same as this:

Phone rings in the middle of dinner:

You: Hello
Them: Hello, I am Jane Doe calling from a phone company you don't use, but should.
You: Please take me off your phone list and don't bother me again.
Them: I am sorry. Have a nice night.

20 minutes later while still at the dinner table:

You: Hello
Them: Hello my name is John Doe, the superviser of Jane Doe at the other phone company. I am calling to comfirm you don't want us to call you again.
You: What don't you understand about don't bother me again?

<major rant>
This is how I see double opt-out. When I say NO, I mean NO!!!!! I don't have the time to play games with spam or even previously requested emails. I get over 200 emails a day. Of them 99% is spam. I have tired to opt out of some and just can't take the time to do all of them. I have 10 subscriptions that I get every month. I don' t have time to read most of them. What make anyone think I would take the time to confirm that I want to stop getting email. Sorry, I work to many hours to deal with that.
</rant>

Heidi

[Alan Perkins]

I don't mean double-opt-out from spam. I mean double-opt-out from a list I have double-opted-into!

[Hope]

I don't even want to double opt out of that. When I say I am done, then I am done. When I say don't mail me anymore, then do not mail me anymore. That is how I feel.

[Alan Perkins]

I hear you, Hope.

However, just as there are guerilla tactics that can be employed in SEO, same goes for e-mail.

When I say I am done, then I am done

The question is, how does the list owner know that it definitely is you saying that you are done?

It's quite easy for somebody unscrupulous to opt somebody else out of a simple e-mail list. If they have paid to be on that list, that upsets them and (when they complain) the list owner.

Even if you have a complex single-opt-out you can mess up.

E.g. are you subscribed to searchenginewatch? Take a look at the bottom of each newsletter and it says something like:


You are currently subscribed to search-engine-update-text as: <your e-mail address>
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-search-engine-update-text-<idcode>@list4.internet.com

Suppose you forwarded an issue to a "friend", who turned out not to be your friend after all. They could use that link at the bottom to send an e-mail unsubscribing you from the list. How long before you noticed?

With double-opt-out, you would be sent an e-mail asking you to confirm opt-out. Your "friend" would not receive that. And you would be able to avoid a problem before it even happened.

It's even not beyond the realms of possibility that you might accidentally unsubscribe yourself by clicking on the link while swapping window focus.

I'm not saying double-opt-out is for every list, far from it. But for quality lists, particularly lists you have paid to be on, I think it's good. It provides extra security.

I only raised it here because that's what I understand double-opt-out to mean. Yet the ClickZ article uses an entirely different meaning for it (i.e. you are spammed twice and, if you don't complain, you are then spammed ad nauseum).

[Kal]

Hey Doug - clicking on that link caused me to get the Windows blue screen of death. Tried it twice with the same result. Anyone else have this happen?

Doug - can you please summarise the jist of the article for those of us who can't reach it?

thanks :)

[Alan Perkins]

Nope - try the simpler printable version (http://www.clickz.com/em_mkt/opt/print.php/934761)

If you still can't get to it, it talks about obtaining "permission" for permission marketing by sending an e-mail saying that you assume you have permission to send more e-mails unless the recipient actively cancels.

Clear spam, if you ask me. But I didn't like the use of the term "double-opt-out", which to me means as I have described above. I even sent some feedback, as follows:

I use "opt-out" and "double-opt-out" to mean ways of leaving a mailing list, not ways of "not subscribing"...

Opt-out, or single-opt-out, requires a single action to leave the list.

Double-opt-out requires a second, confirmation action. Very common on lists you have paid to receive. It provides extra security.

The method of "negative option" is spam, pure and simple. When I receive spam, I do not like to confirm I have received it or that my e-mail address is valid. I never reply to spam. If my filters are set right, I never even see it. Just because I do not reply, that does not mean I am providing a license to spam me ad nauseum. How long would I have to reply, anyway? What if I am on vacation?

I agree that handing somebody one's business card at a trade show is fair game to be put on that company's mailing list. But not to have that company sell your name to a third party. Often when subscribing to a service, one has two confirmation options:

1) Receive e-mail about this company's products and services
2) Receive e-mail about selected partners' products and services

IMO, a business card is equivalent to only checking the first option.

[MazY]

OK I confess that I'm not that hot on e-mail spam. In fact, it is fair to say that it really doesn't bother me that much at all. On the contrary. I read as many as I can. Those that interest me I sit and ponder "Now why did that interest me?". What was it about the format, the text, the headlines, etc that grabbed my attention?

Once I have that figured then sure enough, within a few weeks, you will begin to see aspects of the same techniques within my own site and other related materials.

But where does one draw the line? At what point does one say that is spam and that is not?

An example being the other day. I received an e-mail in plain text format. Dear..... We would like your permission to send details to your M.D. regarding.....

Was this spam? I never asked for it. But I did welcome it and I did respond to it. Without that e-mail then I may never have had an opportunity to come across their service which can, on the face of it, benefit the growth of my company.

Any thoughts?

[Alan Perkins]

Too complicated to get into now...

But there was a great post from Adam Boettiger in today's I-Sales (Issue #1466) (http://list.adventive.com/SCRIPTS/WA.EXE?A2=ind0112&L=i-sales&H=1&O=D&F=&S=&P=545) - chock full of useful URLs and tips.

[MazY]

"What price would you put on the TIME and PRODUCTIVITY lost to a business when their employees must spend an additional 15-30 minutes processing spam or taking time to set up email filters?"

Talk about worst case scenario! I do wish people would base such things on fact and not just over-inflated statements designed to try to punctuate a point.

As for the suggestion regarding using a form instead of an e-mail address. Hmmm. Not sure about that one. If the form is made incredibly, and I mean incredibly easy to use, then my own site experience tells me that people prefer e-mail because of the flexibility it offers.

From my own experience I know that the moment I see a form which needs me to wade through field after field, I'm gone!

[Alan Perkins]

Say a small business has 60 employees. If each employee spends only 15 seconds per day dealing with spam, that's 15 minutes per day...

Many companies have thousands of employees, spending more than seconds per day. It adds up. And will get worse.

Not to mention the bandwidth charges. Latest spammer idea: why not send a video-mail infomercial???

As for the form, that is a bad idea - especially as they can be spammed, too. We've used JavaScript in the past (similar, but even more obscure, to that posted by Curt here (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=415&perpage=20&pagenumber=103) ). And Nitewing's sig contains a link to the Anti-Spam Machine (http://www.myopera.com/exec/e-commerce/99/47/utilities/anti-spam.php3) which claims to "totally-spam-proof" your e-mail address - I'm not so sure, but it probably helps for now. It converts something like <a href="mailto:test@test.com"> into this:

<a href="mailto: &# 116; &# 101; &# 115; &# 116; &# 64; &# 116; &# 101; &# 115; &# 116; . &# 99; &# 111; &# 109; ">

[There should be no spaces between the quotes - but then it just displays as "test@test.com"!]

As a robot writer, I'd be looking for that "href=mailto". It would then be simple to decode the e-mail address.

[MazY]

A "small" business with "60" employees? Hmmm. <Scratches head>

As for the many thousands of employees scenario, I worked in one of these for several years, running the cc:mail/Exchange network and this was never an issue. So what am I missing? There are tools out there to combat this, all certainly within the budget of the employer who has thousands of employees.

I just can't help thinking that spam e-mail is an issue only if you want it to be. If you have other more pressing things to be getting on with then its importance is next to zero.

Surely, at some point in time, people accept that if they have a web site and as they progress their business more and more on to the web, a degree of uninvited e-mail is going to arrive?

People seem to be driving themselves insane over such little issues.

With regards to the video-mail infomercial - you know me, no hypotheticals please.

A good response from a poster in today's I-Sales: -

"For all the vitriolic hatred of spammers, the reason they do spam is that it works. If they or their clients were not getting a good ROI, they wouldn't continue to spam. It's always junk mail until it's something you are interested in, then it's called timely marketing. As long as consumers continue to respond favorably by purchasing products and services from those companies that mass email, the emailers will continue. I get just as much email as anybody else, and it takes me a whole 10 seconds or less to delete those that I'm not interested in reading.

Get over it.

Brad Smith"

[ihelpyou]

All I can say about o'l Brad there,... spammers back up other spammers.

I hate spam. It wastes my time. Yes, even to simply hit the delele button wastes my time. Further, ... even if I was interested in the spam product I would not order or help the spammer. The only reason that any spam might work is because they generally prey on the newbie who does not know better. Just like those "submission" companies out there who prey on them. Any unsolicited email that is advertising something is spam. Could not be anything else.

[Alan Perkins]

OK Maz, you are happy to receive spam. It's just that I'm not. Spam works because of people like you. Trouble is, everybody else has to suffer it too. A spammer thinks a 0.01% return on 10 million e-mails is worthwhile - that's 1000 sales. And 9,999,000 pissed off people.

Where is the problem in offering constructive advice on avoiding spam?

[MazY]

Actually, I am neither happy or unhappy. That's my point. It's a non-issue.

Spam works because the Internet was based upon, is currently and most likely will be for some time, an open and relatively ungoverned format. Not because of "people like me" as you so offensively put it.

Is there a problem with offering constructive advice then? Or is the problem originating from my desire not to join your insatiable quest against spam again? Sorry, but time spent worrying about spam is time that my company can spend improving its services.

[ihelpyou]

As Doug goes to add the Maz to his list of 10 gazillion email addresses to send to his bulk mailer..... :cool:


naw... not me. :)

[ihelpyou]

oh no Maz, I just think you like to debate. :) Not unlike myself at all.

[MazY]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
oh no Maz, I just think you like to debate. :) Not unlike myself at all.

I most certainly do. :D But, more importantly, I really hate following crowds just because everyone else does. Really goes against my grain.

[MazY]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
As Doug goes to add the Maz to his list of 10 gazillion email addresses to send to his bulk mailer.....

LOL. Feel free. I'll still respect ya in the morning. :D

[Alan Perkins]

Maz, by "people like you", I simply meant people who accept and even respond to spam. I am surprised you take offence so easily when you give it out so readily.

Spam works because it's a numbers game, pure and simple. It's cheap to reach 10 million people, a 0.01% conversion ratio (i.e 1000 sales) may make it worthwhile in monetary terms for the spammer. And spammers simply do not care who they offend and how much damage they cause among the 99.99% of the rest.

[MazY]

Originally posted by Alan Perkins
Maz, by "people like you", I simply meant people who accept and even respond to spam. I am surprised you take offence so easily when you give it out so readily.

Ah, finally we get to the point of the Alan/MazY debates. If you don't like my style then the easiest response would be none at all. As for being offended, please read again as clearly your rose-coloured glasses are steaming up a little. I didn't say I was offended, I said your statement was offensive. Please, do take the time to read if you are trying to win points. It will help both you and I to have a much more heated but thoroughly rewarding debate.

Offend, damage? Oh come on, what e-mails are you getting? Certainly must be a whole lot different to mine.

[Alan Perkins]

Ah, finally we get to the point of the Alan/MazY debatesIs there one, then?

Oh come on, what e-mails are you getting? Certainly must be a whole lot different to mine. Pornographic ones. On a machine my kids use.

[MazY]

Would it help any if I just nodded and agreed with everything you write? :)

I'm more than willing to give it a test on trial period. :)

[MazY]

Originally posted by Alan Perkins
Pornographic ones. On a machine my kids use.

Do you need me to come around and set-up your e-mail filtering for you? I'll give you a discount rate.

Anyway, enough nonsense. I'm sure the readers are getting more than a little bored of our ego-battles.

[ihelpyou]

Oh, I agree with both of you. Yes, I agree with both of you. I certainly do agree with both of you. I couldn't agree more with both of you. Absolutely, I agree with both of you. I definitely agree with both of you. :D

[MazY]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
Oh, I agree with both of you. Yes, I agree with both of you. I certainly do agree with both of you. I couldn't agree more with both of you. Absolutely, I agree with both of you. I definitely agree with both of you. :D

LOL. How come I detect a garnishing of insincerity from you, Doug?

[Alan Perkins]

Would it help any if I just nodded and agreed with everything you write?No, just being constructive would have helped. :(

[MazY]

Try to remember, Alan. Just because it doesn't agree with you that does not mean it is not constructive.

If your concept of constructive is something that mirrors your point of view or opinion (albeit mostly hypothetical) then you and I are going to bore the board to tears with our disagreements. Try to keep that in mind.

[ihelpyou]

Come on kids.. Dad is getting sad about the spats. :cry:

[MazY]

He started it, Dad. :D

[ihelpyou]

Well, I know ya both love each other......

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by MazY
Try to remember, Alan. Just because it doesn't agree with you that does not mean it is not constructive. Very true. But, in this case, it was not constructive. The thread degenerated very quickly after you joined it.

If you want to be constructive, come up with a way in which people who like to receive spam can continue to receive it whilst people who don't like it can avoid it as much as possible.

That's what my suggestions (JavaScript, Spam Machine) in response to your first post were attempting to do. That's why (when you reacted as you did) I said "Where is the problem in offering constructive advice on avoiding spam?" You don't have to take the advice. But why knock it? It wasn't bad advice for people who want to avoid spam.

[MazY]

LOL Put that bone down, bad boy!

Let's go around again then...

If, as you point out, the thread degenerated after I joined, you may want to note that only you and I were posting to it after that point. So, my good man, I assume by that you share 50% of the burden of responsibility?

Now, I won't apologise because I refuse to join the Alan Perkins sycophant groupies. By all means continue to spout your hypothetical situations which make absoutely no sense in a reasoned situation but don't get so miffed when someone challenges your views and asks you to try and base at least something on fact. Now "can we move on?", as you so often say.

In the words of Brad Smith, "Get over it".

[MazY]

Thinking about it a little more. If you really can't put the bone down, might I suggest that you take it to e-mail or at least the staff area from here on in?

[Alan Perkins]

Keep it up Maz. Come on, let it all out...

[MazY]

Phew! Does that mean we're done now? Praise the Lord! Until the next time....

[Advisor]

Wow! I can't believe you read and sometimes even respond to your spam, Maz. Not me, baby. Don't want to give them the satisfaction.

And you know, when you're traveling, and on a dial up, and have to pay some hotel's outrageous per minute fees for local calls, then have to download 100 emails, about 85 of which are spam, it becomes much more of a bother than when it comes to me at home via my cable modem. (Like that run on sentence???)

SPAM s-ucks and that's all there is to it. And in my opinion, giving your business card to someone does not give them the right to send you spam and/or their newsletter. Emailing someone also doesn't give them the right to put you on their newsletter (or make you confirm an opt in). If you would like to ask someone who emailed you or gave you their business card if they'd like to receive your newsletter to just let you know, that's fine. But that's the ONLY scenario that I believe is NOT spamming in that kind of scenario.

Just my 20 cents a minute...

Jill

[Advisor]

Oh yeah, and double-opt outs...ridiculous! A confirmation email would do the same trick (one that does not need to be confirmed again.)

J

[MazY]

Originally posted by webwhiz
Wow! I can't believe you read and sometimes even respond to your spam, Maz. Not me, baby. Jill

You know me - I hate the thought of missing something. But here's the thing - I openly accept it and I am lucky if I see more than five a week so maybe I'm just extremely lucky.

The bottom line for me is that I am in business where I want to offer the best service possible to my clients. If Jo Public sends me information about a product or service that is of use to me or my business then sure, I want to know about it.

It would be madness not to.

[Advisor]

Oh, well, if I only had 5 a week it would be a different story. But I literally get hundreds a day. And usually 5 - 10 of the same one, over and over and over again.

I think if you were getting that amount, you might feel a bit more exasperated about it perhaps?

(The only one I ever read was that one from Nikita I told you about! hehehe)

J

[MazY]

LOL Exasperated isn't in my nature, as you well know, young Lady. Clearly you haven't finished reading those (or was it "that") books yet! :)

If things became too bad then I would get the majority stopped at my ISP level. Problems are only problems until you implement a solution.

Ah - the infamous Nikita e-mail. That's the one I've been waiting for. It still hasn't arrived in my Inbox! :D

[Advisor]

I did finish *that* book, but was more confused than before I started!

And one upon a time I did have great email filters set up at the ISP level, but then had to change servers. Don't think it's an option now, although I should check on it.

As to the Nikita email, I received it again recently, and did have to laugh! :green:

Jill

[MazY]

Originally posted by webwhiz
I did finish *that* book, but was more confused than before I started!

And one upon a time I did have great email filters set up at the ISP level, but then had to change servers. Don't think it's an option now, although I should check on it.

As to the Nikita email, I received it again recently, and did have to laugh! :green:

Jill

Certainly no harm with checking with your ISP. Erm, not sure that was the desired effect with the book! lol

I cannot believe you received that e-mail and didn't forward it to me. Shame on you. I want the next one just so I can say I have one of my own. :D

[Hasenfefer]

http://www.bizreport.com/article.php?art_id=2645&PHPSESSID=1a7ca1c08aa36bacf4f92af43fba5880 = ohhh how i wish I lived in Washington!!!

"If things became too bad then I would get the majority stopped at my ISP level. Problems are only problems until you implement a solution."

The idea that I should have to be 'remotely' inconvenienced over some companies illegal SPAM campaign is ridicules at best.

Carry on :p

[MazY]

Originally posted by Hasenfefer
The idea that I should have to be 'remotely' inconvenienced over some companies illegal SPAM campaign is ridicules at best.


You don't "have to be". It's an option should you choose to take it.

Carry on :p

Thank you for your permission. Much appreciated.

[Hasenfefer]

"You don't "have to be"."

Yes I do in order to stop the SPAM.

Do you use email campaigns in your business MaZy?