On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:47:55 -0400, Joe Abley
On Friday, Sep 26, 2003, at 09:22 Canada/Eastern, DPF wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:03:04 +1200, "Brian Gibbons"
wrote: From: "Simon Byrnand"
[half hearted effort to block spam] (And in that category I include manual blocking of huge swarths of ip space, outright blocking based on most RBL blacklists, Mailmarshall, and Challenge response systems, all of which have unacceptable collateral damage
Well said.
People may be interested that NZ marketing companies (as in operating 100% opt in e-mail lists) have advised that around 20% of their e-mails are getting blocked by anti spam type technologies (esp Mail Marshall) which is actually quite shocking that such a high percentage of e-mails that people want to receive are being blocked.
People are persuaded to opt-in to things in all kinds of tricky ways.
I think a better interpretation is that these allegedly opt-in companies are sending mail which people demonstrably don't want to receive.
I think making assumptions without any evidence is very dangerous. I know many people who get e-mail blocked they want to receive but as we just heard from Frank at MED, they are unable to change company policies.
(Nobody would endure a spam filtering service which had a 20% false positive rate, so the only natural conclusion to draw is that the opt-in messages which are blocked aren't considered false positives by the subscribers to those spam filtering services).
You would be right if people had a choice of subscribing but many people are forced to accept whatever their employer puts in place. DPF -- Blog: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz E-mail: david(a)farrar.com ICQ: 29964527 MSN: dpf666(a)hotmail.com