<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: Another sad proof of why the industry can't handle the UCE issue

  • To: Paul Wouters < >
  • From: Jan Meijer < >
  • Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:21:40 +0200
  • Cc: Piet Beertema < >
  • Organization: SURFnet BV

Sorry, bit of a long mail alert.

> it has been built. The only exception I can possible think of are
> clear health hazards that are also announced in newspapers and TV.

Well, that pretty much describes microsoft ;)

> being allowed to ignore the opt-out, and as a result we'e back to square 1,
> everyone having the right to send unsollicited email.

I'm not completely awake yet, but I think you might have a point here.  

Quoting Piet here:

"
That's your interpretation, not a translation. I don't have
a problem with an *occasional* (like in this case) message
from the manufacturer of a product I use when it is about a
(potential) serious problem with that product and refers to
a [webpage with] solution.

"

The original messages states clearly that even if you stated you don't want
to receive mail you still will receive mail every now and then.

I'd say: you let the vendor know you do not wish to receive mail from them. 
If you wanted to receive mail, you have the option to let them know.  If you
want to know the important things (security problems etc.), the vendor
should differentiate between those two types of information and offer the
possiblity to 

a. do not wish to get all mail
b. do wish to get serious problem mail

As Paul pointed out, every vendor can think of a reason why some things are
extremely important and thus dump them over the "b" list.  But then you have
the option to opt out of that one. 

Concluding I'd say the vendor should provide supporting mechanisms if they
think some messages are that important that a general opt out should be
ignored.  That way the opt out principle is not thrown away, but used.

Jan

-- 
alive=true




  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>