Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Block and Unsubscribe

gmailblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 131 posts

Re: Block and Unsubscribe

#111

Post by oxide »

timr wrote: post #103
e40 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mind it when someone emails me, personally, one time with an unsolicited business offer that is specific to me. That's like .01% of the email I get. Maybe you are different. The ones that seem to be tailored to me are really just a template with my name substituted. I think we can all recognize those and agree they are spam.

You're making a distinction that doesn't work. At what point does an email become "tailored"? Five words? Ten? If someone sends you an unsolicited sales pitch that is mostly identical to the one they're sending to five hundred other people, but uses your name and adds a sentence saying that they "admire the work you've done with $X", is it no longer spam? You can't define a standard for illegal behavior that encompas…

actually, it does work. a template is a pretty clear concept, a fill-in-the-blanks form that is sent out en masse. an email becomes a "template" when it is used as a template.

Re: Block and Unsubscribe

#112

Post by triangleman »

timr wrote: post #100
linkregister wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Several people have responded to this recommending restraint with the "Spam" button. I disagree. I work for an email service provider; if our customers have a bad unsubscribe method, sometimes the only way to communicate that is to give them a higher complaint rate by clicking "Spam". The customer then comes to us to ask what's wrong, then we analyze their setup and tell them. In the short term, spam complaints hurt…

The problem is that people make up all sorts of ridiculous "laws" in their heads, and get extremely self-righteous when those invented, nonsensical rules are violated. Email service providers are exceedingly conservative, and will nearly always side with these people, even if they're lunatics. For example: sending someone an unsolicited email is not spam. If it were, then nearly every person with an email account wou…

Is that last paragraph supposed to be ironic, considering the first?

Re: Block and Unsubscribe

#113

Post by linkregister »

timr wrote: post #100
linkregister wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Several people have responded to this recommending restraint with the "Spam" button. I disagree. I work for an email service provider; if our customers have a bad unsubscribe method, sometimes the only way to communicate that is to give them a higher complaint rate by clicking "Spam". The customer then comes to us to ask what's wrong, then we analyze their setup and tell them. In the short term, spam complaints hurt…

The problem is that people make up all sorts of ridiculous "laws" in their heads, and get extremely self-righteous when those invented, nonsensical rules are violated. Email service providers are exceedingly conservative, and will nearly always side with these people, even if they're lunatics. For example: sending someone an unsolicited email is not spam. If it were, then nearly every person with an email account wou…

I think you're talking about a different use case. The original subject in this thread was about mailing lists that are difficult to unsubscribe from.

I would say (and a legal interpretation of CAN-SPAM would agree) that an unsolicited mass campaign of emails are spam, are not wanted, and aren't legal in the US. A fully individualized, tailored email probably doesn't fall in this class of email.

Double-opt-in is a good email practice. There are several reasons for this.

1. Ensure the email address actually belongs to the account holder. Some people make up an address with a common name instead of using a throwaway email provider, such as Mailinator.

2. Demonstrate to email service providers that the lists are legitimate and aren't used for unsolicited marketing. Many whitelisting and un-blacklisting negotiations are still handled by people. Good practices are important for reputation management.

Re: Block and Unsubscribe

#114

Post by derefr »

mklim wrote: post #17

> That’s why you can now block specific email addresses in Gmail [...] Future mail will go to the spam folder (and you can always unblock in Settings). It's nice to have a one-click button for it, but this was already available by configuring a filter. You just need to select all emails from a particular address and then choose to always mark them as spam or send them directly into the trash. From the headline I was…

Filters apply on a dumb level: do this if exactly this address, etc. I hope this would apply on a higher, "do what I mean" level: attempt to figure out if each new From address is actually the same person or organization as one you've already blocked, and, if so, add it to the "contact" of the blocked party so that it's blocked too.

Re: Block and Unsubscribe

#115

Post by linkregister »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #74
BowBun wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see how people get annoyed (I do), but I think this strategy is harmful to some companies. For example, I work for a web company that sends out a LOT of emails as reminders for events. ISPs (or some other web intermediary, I'm not sure) have rankings based on your likelihood to spam. A lot of spammy emails are already caught in the filter, and either don't go through or go to your spam folder. We work pretty ha…

I see how that advice benefits your company. But it doesn't benefit me, much. I'd prefer to err on the side of pushing that button too much.

On the other hand, a false positive does harm you if it makes it more difficult for your email provider to weed out the genuine spam.

(But I think you are only clicking "spam" on the unsolicited or hard-to-unsubscribe stuff, which I support)

Re: Block and Unsubscribe

#116

Post by DanBC »

linkregister wrote: post #115
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see how that advice benefits your company. But it doesn't benefit me, much. I'd prefer to err on the side of pushing that button too much.

On the other hand, a false positive does harm you if it makes it more difficult for your email provider to weed out the genuine spam. (But I think you are only clicking "spam" on the unsolicited or hard-to-unsubscribe stuff, which I support)

As soon as a company sends me email other than hat I signed up for I report as spam.

Companies need to learn that merely being in possession of my email address doesn't mean they can send me anything they like.

I'd pay money for a modern day SPEWS-like art project.

Re: Block and Unsubscribe

#117

Post by timr »

alanh wrote: post #110
timr wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making a distinction that doesn't work. At what point does an email become "tailored"? Five words? Ten? If someone sends you an unsolicited sales pitch that is mostly identical to the one they're sending to five hundred other people, but uses your name and adds a sentence saying that they "admire the work you've done with $X", is it no longer spam? You can't define a standard for illegal behavior that encompas…

Your post reads like a satire of SV mindset - overly literal, overly self-assured, totally ignorant of how the world outside of a logic system actually works, and consequently choosing the libertarian or technoanarchist "throw it all out" approach. Laws always have some room for interpretation.

Ha! I'm neither a libertarian nor a technoanarchist -- in fact, I'm frequently arguing with those types on HN. But thanks for the laugh.

Laws have room for interpretation, but again, they can't be written in a way that includes legitimate uses as illegal behavior, or the law is worse than useless. Define a rule that says (essentially) "you know spam when you see it", and you end up where pornography is: email marketing will be legal, with random, ineffective, arbitrary restrictions that make business within the domain unseemly and difficult.

Said another way: criminalize unsolicited email and only criminals will send emails.

Re: Block and Unsubscribe

#118

Post by timr »

oxide wrote: post #111
timr wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making a distinction that doesn't work. At what point does an email become "tailored"? Five words? Ten? If someone sends you an unsolicited sales pitch that is mostly identical to the one they're sending to five hundred other people, but uses your name and adds a sentence saying that they "admire the work you've done with $X", is it no longer spam? You can't define a standard for illegal behavior that encompas…

actually, it does work. a template is a pretty clear concept, a fill-in-the-blanks form that is sent out en masse. an email becomes a "template" when it is used as a template.

My theoretical marketer isn't using a template! He's writing a customized sentence or two specific to every recipient. And if that isn't enough, he's using a statistical model to change the wording of the offer, and select the content of the paragraphs, images, etc. based on your location, age and industry. The email is specific to you in every way -- it's just mostly generated by a machine.

You can't win this game.

Re: Block and Unsubscribe

#119

Post by alanh »

timr wrote: post #117
alanh wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post reads like a satire of SV mindset - overly literal, overly self-assured, totally ignorant of how the world outside of a logic system actually works, and consequently choosing the libertarian or technoanarchist "throw it all out" approach. Laws always have some room for interpretation.

Ha! I'm neither a libertarian nor a technoanarchist -- in fact, I'm frequently arguing with those types on HN. But thanks for the laugh. Laws have room for interpretation, but again, they can't be written in a way that includes legitimate uses as illegal behavior, or the law is worse than useless. Define a rule that says (essentially) "you know spam when you see it" , and you end up where pornography is: email market…

Well, that’s true — I don’t want all unsolicited email to be banned — although the types of unsolicited mail I want are narrow enough to almost be defined (and thus solicited).

There is perhaps a distinction that could go really far, though: unsolicited email from and on behalf of an individual, not a company, legal entity, or service provider, is 1000× more likely to be acceptable than the latter!

Re: Block and Unsubscribe

#120

Post by linkregister »

DanBC wrote: post #116
linkregister wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, a false positive does harm you if it makes it more difficult for your email provider to weed out the genuine spam. (But I think you are only clicking "spam" on the unsolicited or hard-to-unsubscribe stuff, which I support)

As soon as a company sends me email other than hat I signed up for I report as spam. Companies need to learn that merely being in possession of my email address doesn't mean they can send me anything they like. I'd pay money for a modern day SPEWS-like art project.

There are a number of modern-day services that perform a similar function. Spamhaus is probably the most famous. Looking at the wikipedia entry, it looks like SPEWS failed because their whitelist process was not good (and the DoS attacks).
Post reply on HN