Edición de «The Anti-Spam Zealots Who Went To The FTC Spam Forum»

On the three days from April 30 through Friday, May 2, 2003, <br>the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) held a "Spam Forum" in <br>Washington, D.C. <br><br>According to the FTC website, the purpose of this forum was<br>"to address the proliferation of unsolicited commercial e-mail <br>and to explore the technical, legal, and financial issues <br>associated with it."<br><br>While the FTC and other government entities try to figure out<br>how they can legally address the Spam issue, they are doing so <br>without consulting with those of us who run small businesses <br>online. Of the 97 people who spoke at the forum, the majority <br>was technicians and lawyers who represent the ISP's and <br>Anti-Spam companies. A few of the people even represented <br>large bulk email companies. <br><br>Forum participants could not even agree on a proper definition<br>of "spam" --- yet they propose that they are the best qualified <br>to help write the laws that will eliminate spam?<br><br>My question is this, who represented the small business owner<br>and the small publishers at the FTC spam forum? No one really. <br>It was not because the small business segment did not have <br>representatives willing to speak on their behalf. In fact, <br>both I-Cop.org and OMPUAC.org --- both of whom represent <br>small online businesses --- had petitioned to have their <br>representatives speak at the forum, but both were turned <br>down. <br><br>You can read the list of the people who DID speak at the FTC<br>"Spam Forum" at:<br><br>website<br><br>Should you honestly believe the anti-spam profiteers had your<br>interests in mind when they had the opportunity to speak to <br>the FTC?<br><br>Here are some of the anti-spam profiteers who found<br>representation at the FTC "Spam Forum":<br><br>· Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)<br>· SpamCon Foundation <br>· SpamCop<br>· The Spamhaus Project <br>· Habeas<br><br>Even in the hallowed lists of the anti-spam zealots, the<br>profiteers aren't taken very seriously sometimes. When <br>addressing Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., CEO of Habeas, Inc., <br>a member of the SPAM-L list suggested:<br><br>"What makes you think that 'we' trust Habeas any more than<br>any other organisation whose business model depends on <br>spam continuing to exist in order to stay in business."<br><br>Good point.<br><br>William Waggoner, founder of AAW Marketing LLC in Las Vegas,<br>Nevada, did actually support my own point of view. He suggested <br>at the "Spam Forum" that technology techniques like spam <br>filtering hurts even legitimate email marketers!<br><br>You know whom Mr. Waggoner was talking about. He was talking<br>about those e-mail marketers who have actually acquired <br>permission from the email recipient to send them commercial <br>email. <br><br>When someone in the [http://rt.com/search/everywhere/term/forum%20audience/ forum audience] laughed at his comment,<br>Waggoner fired back, "You think that's funny?"<br><br>So why did they laugh? This gets to the heart of why the FTC<br>Spam Forum was bad news for the legitimate email marketer. Many <br>anti-spam zealots do not believe that there is such a thing as <br>"legitimate commercial email!"<br><br>TERM: Double Opt-in - Requires a subscriber to request a<br>subscription and then to verify the intention to subscribe <br>by following a defined procedure.<br><br>Even if publishers who now require "double opt-in"<br>subscriptions were to ask for and keep records of "quadruple <br>opt-in" verifications from their subscribers, [http://vtr.org.vn/mua-xuan-o-han-quoc.html tour Hàn Quốc giá rẻ] a lot of <br>anti-spam zealots would still cry foul! <br><br>Why else would the terms *s*u*b*s*c*r*i*b*e* and *u*n*s*u*b-<br>*s*c*r*i*b*e* be included in many spam filters with the implied <br>suggestion that email that carries this terminology MUST be <br>spam?<br><br>It does no good to be able to prove double opt-in to the ISP's<br>and the anti-spam zealots. Most presuppose that any commercial <br>email is likely to be spam.<br><br>The ISP's are honestly concerned with the cost of bandwidth in<br>association with email. Estimates have put the monthly cost of <br>spam to be $3 per month per email account. Thus, if ISP's can <br>reduce or eliminate spam, they can reduce their costs and <br>improve their profits. <br><br>ISP's who oppose all commercial email --- you know, the kind<br>who laugh at the suggestion that spam filters hurt "legitimate <br>email marketers" --- think one step further. They believe that <br>if they can eliminate all commercial email, then they can <br>significantly reduce their costs and significantly improve <br>their profits!<br><br>At every level of the Internet food-chain, people are concerned<br>with their own profits. The anti-spam zealots, who had the most <br>pronounced representation at the FTC spam forum, will profit <br>handsomely from the loss of commercial email... Or will they? <br><br>Without commercial enterprise on the Internet, will people<br>still be flocking to the web in the numbers they are today?<br><br>Recognizing the fact that the filtering industry is destroying<br>email commerce, people like Anne P. Mitchell of Habeas, Inc. have<br>come running to the assistance of online commercial businesses. <br>For a price, Habeas will "whitelist" your publication or [http://vtr.org.vn/mua-xuan-o-han-quoc.html tour Hàn Quốc từ hà nội] email <br>--- or should I say for a hefty price, [http://vtr.org.vn/mua-xuan-o-han-quoc.html tour Hàn Quốc] Habeas will "whitelist" <br>your email! <br><br>TERM: Whitelist - This is a kind of filter that suggests that<br>any email that meets the whitelist definitions will be <br>pre-verified (under the terms of the whitelist company) <br>as [http://bordersalertandready.com/?s=legitimate%20commercial&search=Search legitimate commercial] email.<br><br>Habeas purports to offer a "value-added service" that will help<br>your outgoing email reach its destination unobstructed. Habeas <br>also purports its fees to be very reasonable --- up to $500 per <br>mailing list per year. Is $500 really a "reasonable" price? I <br>don't think so.<br><br>As consumers, we always think of the "spam war" as something<br>that addresses the unsolicited email from the p*o*r*n industry, <br>the nutritional products industry, and other fly-by-night <br>scammers. <br><br>Yet, when the people who are speaking on our behalf in the<br>halls of government think of the "spam war", they are thinking <br>of something else entirely. In fact, they are attempting to <br>remove the cash from the pockets of not only the spammers, but <br>also the small business people who employ legitimate email <br>marketing techniques.<br><br>Why do so many anti-spam zealots target all [http://Www.sharkbayte.com/keyword/commercial%20email commercial email]?<br>Simple, they want to put the cash where THEY think it belongs <br>--- into their own pockets!