Block and Unsubscribe • Hacker News Board

Re: Block and Unsubscribe

#121

Post by bduerst » Wed, Sep 23, 2015, 7:25 PM UTC

smnrchrds wrote: post #94

bduerst wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the law doesn't specify how well the unsubscribe (opt-outs) have to work. You could literally leave unsubscribe instructions to snail mail your email address to some location, and as long as you stopped emailing them 10 days after getting the mail you're okay.

IANAL but that doesn't sound true. "You can’t ... make the recipient take any step other than sending a reply email or visiting a single page on an Internet website as a condition for honoring an opt-out request." [1] [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/can...

You're right - I stand corrected.

Re: Block and Unsubscribe

#122

Post by linkregister » Wed, Sep 23, 2015, 7:25 PM UTC

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…

You can and it was defined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003

Also, your example falls under the Compliant class of emails under the act.

Edit: (since I can't reply to a poster from whom I received a down vote)

I agree, the act is too narrow in my opinion. I don't equate clicking "spam" with compliance with the law. I was simply stating that the parent post's "slippery slope" assertion wasn't accurate in this case.

Re: Block and Unsubscribe

#123

Post by DanBC » Wed, Sep 23, 2015, 7:29 PM UTC

linkregister wrote: post #122

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…

You can and it was defined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003 Also, your example falls under the Compliant class of emails under the act. Edit: (since I can't reply to a poster from whom I received a down vote) I agree, the act is too narrow in my opinion. I don't equate clicking "spam" with compliance with the law. I was simply stating that the parent post's "slippery slope" assertion wasn't accurat…

Email compliant with lax US law may well be spam.

Compliance with law is not sufficient to stop me (and many other people) from just reporting as spam.

Re: Block and Unsubscribe

#124

Post by DanBC » Wed, Sep 23, 2015, 7:34 PM UTC

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…

> Email providers are so scared of this that many officially require double-opt-in procedures in order to open an account

"Double opt in" is a flag-phrase that makes you sound like a spammer. If you want to avoid sounding like a spammer you should probably use the phrase "confirmed opt-in" instead.

Confirmed opt in is vital for unsolicited bulk email.

The example you give - unsolicited email, sent to a single person is not spam. As soon as it's sent to more than one person it's spam. Avoid being labeled as a spammer by asking people to opt in, and confirming their opt-in.

Re: Block and Unsubscribe

#125

Post by aiiane » Wed, Sep 23, 2015, 7:34 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #114

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.

The failure case for that logic is pretty bad.

Re: Block and Unsubscribe

#126

Post by DanBC » Wed, Sep 23, 2015, 7:36 PM UTC

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…

> that encompasses most of what the medium is designed to do.

What? That's wrong. UBE has always been hated, ever since the Project Gutenberg guy tried to email the US constitution to everyone who had an email address.

Re: Block and Unsubscribe

#127

Post by eli » Wed, Sep 23, 2015, 8:08 PM UTC

hammock wrote: post #99

eli wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're both kind of right. A one-click unsubscribe is not required, but if you do use a web link for unsubscribe, the form can't require the user to enter any information beyond their email address. (Unsubscribe forms that require you to login are probably violating this law.) "Reply with the word REMOVE in the subject" is also a CAN-SPAM complaint unsubscribe method, though.

>If you do use a web link for unsubscribe, the form can't require the user to enter any information beyond their email address. I don't get that from my reading of the actual law or FTC guidance. Can you explain how you came to your conclusion? Full text of CAN-SPAM: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-108s877enr/pdf/BILLS-108s...

It's actually surprisingly difficult to find original, authoritative sources on what the law requires. You linked to the full text of the bill Congress passed, but that left all the implementation details up to the FTC. The rule I'm talking about was not in the original bill or in the original set of FTC rules, but was added later by the FTC in 2008.

From 16 CFR 316.5:

  > Neither a sender nor any person act-
  > ing on behalf of a sender may require 
  > that any recipient pay any fee, provide 
  > any information other than the recipi-
  > ent’s electronic mail address and opt- 
  > out preferences, or take any other 
  > steps except sending a reply electronic 
  > mail message or visiting a single Inter-
  > net Web page, in order to [...]

And you can view that from here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2011-title16-vol1/CFR-2...

(The FTC also mentions it in their guidance for businesses: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/can... under bullet #6)

Re: Block and Unsubscribe

#128

Post by copsarebastards » Wed, Sep 23, 2015, 8:17 PM UTC

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…

> 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?

Trying to measure this by word count is completely socially inept. It's not about word count, it's about the fact that they don't actually give a crap about me or my goals: they're just trying to sell me their product. I don't care if 100% of the words in the message are hand-crafted to appeal to me: if they're just trying to convert me as a revenue stream instead of actually trying to address me as a person, I don't want to hear from them, even once.

Re: Block and Unsubscribe

#129

Post by shostack » Wed, Sep 23, 2015, 8:26 PM UTC

fpgaminer wrote: post #90

Speaking of spam, the wedding industry is the worst offender I've ever seen; worse than porn websites. I've had my email address web spider-able for many years, but never seen as much spam as I have while planning a wedding. These venues and vendors take your information and sell it 2 seconds later to anyone and everyone. One venue, for example, I emailed to set up a visit and meeting. This wasn't some web form, it w…

Did you happen to create an account at TheKnot.com? We used dedicated email addresses for our wedding because I anticipated this, along with a "+theknot" modifier on the address, and holy crap did that inbox blow up with everyone they sold it to.

Re: Block and Unsubscribe

#130

Post by derefr » Wed, Sep 23, 2015, 8:33 PM UTC

aiiane wrote: post #125

derefr wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The failure case for that logic is pretty bad.

Depends on how they expose the UI for it. You could have a bin at the bottom of your inbox labelled "messages from recently auto-blocked senders"—with the messages still technically in the Spam folder and liable to be erased after 30 days, but exposed so you don't have to hunt through your "confirmed spam" to see them.

Throw in a little tweak to detect if you go on vacation (e.g. no messages opened in the last week, etc.) and pause the "decay" of messages in the spam folder until you get back, and it'd be just as safe as the system we have now.