Comments on: “It’s not spam when I send it” http://overlawyered.com/2006/02/its-not-spam-when-i-send-it/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:26:11 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: markm http://overlawyered.com/2006/02/its-not-spam-when-i-send-it/comment-page-1/#comment-2089 markm Mon, 06 Feb 2006 17:30:10 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=3062#comment-2089 Assuming "not deceptive" includes using an undisguised and unchanging sender address, then Crist has a point. It's the spammers that adopt a thousand false names and sender addresses that clog up the e-mail, not the non-deceptive ones. Nearly all e-mail servers now allow the user to identify senders of unwanted mail and have everything from that sender blocked. It's actually easier than unsubscribing, even when unsubscribe works (although identifying someone to your e-mail service as a spammer has wider consequences, so don't do it just because you changed your mind about a mailing list you once opted to join). However, just how stupid does a politician have to be to annoy voters with repeated unwanted begging messages? The usual theory of spammers is that they can offend 99.999% of the recipients of their mail, because it costs them nothing to offset profits from the 0.001% that buy the advertised product. This only holds if there is practically no chance that the other 99.999% might have "bought" without being spammed - e.g., if GM or Walmart authorized spamming on their behalf they would lose many more customers than they gain, and I have to think that Crist is losing votes. Assuming “not deceptive” includes using an undisguised and unchanging sender address, then Crist has a point. It’s the spammers that adopt a thousand false names and sender addresses that clog up the e-mail, not the non-deceptive ones. Nearly all e-mail servers now allow the user to identify senders of unwanted mail and have everything from that sender blocked. It’s actually easier than unsubscribing, even when unsubscribe works (although identifying someone to your e-mail service as a spammer has wider consequences, so don’t do it just because you changed your mind about a mailing list you once opted to join).

However, just how stupid does a politician have to be to annoy voters with repeated unwanted begging messages? The usual theory of spammers is that they can offend 99.999% of the recipients of their mail, because it costs them nothing to offset profits from the 0.001% that buy the advertised product. This only holds if there is practically no chance that the other 99.999% might have “bought” without being spammed – e.g., if GM or Walmart authorized spamming on their behalf they would lose many more customers than they gain, and I have to think that Crist is losing votes.

]]>