Home Why Email Marketing? The Power of Email Marketing Spam vs. Email The List to huge profits Build Targeted List How to Send Commercial Email How to Send Bulk Email Create Email that Gets Orders Putting It All Together Profit from Direct Email Bulk Email Handbook Word Wrap Do's and Don'ts of Bulk Email Effective Email Marketing Make Money with Junk Email Spamming Issues Disclaimer Contact Email Marketing Strategies Revealed A Broad Picture of the Spamming Issue With all the controversy over bulk email, I figured we needed a solid article about the issue. I picked this one, written by Michel Alain Gourbault. I don't personally use unsolicited mail of any kind, although I recognize it as a valid form of advertising. I actually kind of like getting junk email, especially if it is fresh info about a product I am interested in. It sure beats all that crap they stuff in my mailbox every day. I throw away a hefty garbage sack filled with normal junk mail every week, and I would much prefer to just hit 'delete'. I have had some very uptight people accuse me of spamming and threaten to sue me because of misdelivered mail. I don't spam, _ever_, but sometimes my mail gets to the wrong address or someone plays a joke on me by giving out a made-up address instead of a real one. if you are one of those uptight people, please consult your physician and obtain a prescription for valium before using the internet again. Would you punch someone in the face because they mistook you for a friend and said hello? Would you bomb someone's house because you accidentally received a letter from them that was intended for you neighbor? Anyway, whether you are for or against bulk email, I think you will find this article interesting. It covers the issue in a very practical manner, and takes the viewpoint of a typical marketer who wants to advertise without offending people. It is a very personal article, and it reflects specifically the views of Mr. Gourbault, but I find that it offers a moderate and reasonable position. Hope you like. INTRODUCTION Dear Fellow Netizen, What prompted me to start this discussion on spamming were two quasi-simultaneous events which occurred one in the morning and the other in the late afternoon of the same day: November 24, 1997. THE EVENTS Event number one was my receiving an email inviting me to visit the web site of what turned out to be a blatant Spam-as-You-Please bulk-email company. Shortly after my visit, I wrote to that company to express my dismay at the way their advertising and bulk software offer were presenting large scale spamming as a normal thing to do. Event number two was an email from the company who was providing one of my personalised and most appropriate email addresses. That email was announcing the suspension of my account pending confirmation of the complaints against me. Now, that was especially interesting since I had taken the trouble to divide the 2000 addresses in my mailer's address book into much smaller files each containing less than 100 addresses. Yes, less than one hundred. And I had only sent two of these small files, which I intended to send at the most reasonable rate - I thought - of just one a day. Note that, together, these American companies represent the two opposite poles of the spamming issue, and typify the historical causes of a problem that has its roots in the US. The no-spamming, not-even-one- unsolicited email rule of the first breeds and justifies the existence of the other. Which one is right? which one is wrong? In my opinion, they both are wrong. And that's what I intend to demonstrate in this discussion, backed up by many details. Ironically, the details of these two case studies demonstrate the absurdity of short-sighted, one-sided rules and the inevitability of the growing spamming phenomenon. Yet, in spite of this bleak picture, I remain relatively optimistic that logic and reason will prevail. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please be warned that this is a long discussion, made necessary by the controversial nature of this issue. You may or may not agree with my approach and proposed solution, but they are as honestly presented as the integrity of the writer requires. I would be extremely pleased to receive your comments and own opinions. If you wish to share your thoughts on this topic, you can write to me at this address. Of course, I will only reply to those who provide cool-headed comments - pro or con. All others will be trashed. The discussion begins with a summary of my personal experiences andconclusions and is followed by the actual remarks made to all parties concerned. While reading, please keep in mind that I am not an American and that I have personally investigated the two opposite sides of this issue. In this text, the personalised address provider is identified as the XXXX company, his representative as Mr. So-and-So, and the bulk-email company as NNNN and their address as support@zzzz.com. MY MAIN CONCLUSIONS: The Internet is no longer the exclusive domain of the USA. It has become a world tool for exchanges of ideas, and products and services. Its operation also affects the rest of the world, and so, other nationals should also have a voice in how that system could best function in everybody's best interests. Because of its demographics and all-economic-based politics, the American society as a whole encourages excesses and extreme measures ("The sky's the limit". "Everything or Nothing". "If you're not with me, you're against me". Does that sound familiar?) Non-American nationals and the more tolerant Americans (the vast majority) can bring a little moderation and common sense into the discussion. Like the Internet itself, spamming is a problem that could only have originated in the USA. Therefore it must be solved by Americans. But since it also affects non-Americans through American service provider policies, a "moderate" non-American perspective may be useful in coming to a sensible solution that the entire Internet community can live with and abide by. If Americans want to be respected as world leaders (especially in marketing and economics), they should first put their own house in order and learn or apply the art of moderation. For peace to be restored and maintained on the Internet, I believe it is important that intolerance on all sides of the issue be replaced by a genuine desire to find a common sense solution for all parties concerned. That solution cannot favor any of the radical sides. It has to be a sensible "middle ground" solution. And it has to be focused on the large majority of people who are neither for nor against unsolicited emails per se. The unrealistic "no-unsolicited email" rules which have been adopted by most North American ISPs as a result of the actions of a few but ever-growing radical or desperate elements on both sides of the issue, have had the extremely adverse effect of giving far too much power and enjoyment to those who deserve it the least (ie. the hackers, forgers and miscellaneous crackpots), while hiding the undeniable fact that the vast MAJORITY of Netizens use - or would want to use - the Information Superhighway responsibly. With a little more reflection and flexibility on the part of those who control the operation of the Net, sensible solutions can be found. I am proposing a few on this web site and especially at the end of this discussion. Legislation is not a solution... it can only be an admission of powerlessness and failure to look at the big picture and to think outside the box. Consider this for a moment: for an anti-spamming law to work for the Internet, every country in the world would have to pass the exact same law and be willing to enforce it with equal vigour and consistency. I predict that this will never happen. My American friends, remember the prohibition on alcohol? Was that a success or a failure? ALL man-made laws are imperfect - by the very fact that they are requested and passed by imperfect human beings. When God Almighty will pass laws for all of mankind, then and only then we will be assured of perfect Laws and perfect Balance. However, God will never do that - because He's having far too much fun watching His Creatures trying to imitate Him! READ RIGHT HERE (http://www.cauce.org) WHAT THE PRO-LEGISLATION NETIZENS ON BOTH SIDES ARE DOING AND HOPING TO ACCOMPLISH IN CONGRESS... If you are in favour of a MIDDLE-GROUND SOLUTION, are YOU anywhere in their picture? Are they thinking about you at all? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the No-Spam Side - there are those who refuse to recognize the obvious, namely that, largely with the strong encouragement of the American media, the worldwide Internet Network has become commercial. Yet, that's a fact, an irreversible trend. And even the XXXX company recognizes that fact since it proposes domain name addresses of an obvious commercial nature - addresses such as cyberservices.com and information4u.com. On the Spam-As-You-Please Side - there are those who consider that since marketing and advertising are facts of our modern life, permeating, as they do, magazines, newspapers, television, practically all media, and that neither direct marketing by postal mail nor advertising pamphlets distributed door to door, or door to door cold canvassing are illegal in any society based on American- style economics, then it stands to reason that the Internet can be used in the same way and for the same purpose. The Point of View of Service Providers - Spamming on a grand scale can cause major technical and administrative problems for them and their respective subscribers when too much of their available bandwidth is used by those who are either ignorant of these possible problems, or inconsiderate or greedy enough to bulk email on that scale anyway. THE FACTS OF MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE: In the second half of November 1997, the following innocuous message, which I sent in two small batches of less than 100 emails each over two consecutive days, prompted the following very quick reaction from the company who was providing my permanent address. I believe this was an over-reaction, underlying the more serious, large scale spamming problem which reflects and impacts on even the "responsible" advertisers. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MY EMAIL MESSAGE WAS: Subject: MailRobo EZdozit requesting a word with you... Greetings, my esteemed Fellow Netizen! How are you today? How are you doing in general? Is there anything I can do for you? ...like provide you with time-saving information? I have ten web pages worth of information, covering 21 areas of interest, to offer you. If you are interested, may I suggest you first listen to what I wish to whisper in your ear by sending me an email at ag-start@spenet.com [autoresponder address] When you do so, you will get introduced to our powerful web site, The Global Information Centre. I look forward to hearing from you. Have a great day! Yours for an ever brighter future, Mailbot E-Zdoz-it -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." Anais Nin) //\\ http://members.tripod.com/~si_utt/GIC.html //\\ biz_e@post1.com **************************************************************** NOTE: world-netizen@information4u.com and info-world@cyberservices.com are the two addresses which were provided by the XXXX company. My two separate mailings totalled no more than 164 addresses. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ THE XXXX COMPANY'S IMMEDIATE REACTION: This email serves to inform you that your XXXX service has been suspended. We have received complaints that you have violated XXXX's Acceptable Use Policy (see extract below). Confirmation of this complaint will result in the termination of your XXXX service. XXXX is firmly against spamming and unsolicited emails. XXXX believes this activity is harmful and disruptive to the Internet community. XXXX has made reducing spamming activities a high priority and acts fast if it determines that spamming has occurred. XXXX's policies are stated in the XXXX Service Agreement and in its Acceptable Use Policy. When appropriate, XXXX refers spamming activity to the appropriate legal authorities including the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Computer Crime Unit. Interfering with the operation of an Internet Service Provider is a Federal crime. If you feel that you are not in violation of XXXX's Acceptable Use Policy please respond withan explanation and an XXXX customer service representative will assist you. Acceptable Use Policy The following policy governs the use of XXXX products and services ("XXXX Service") by customers of XXXX ("Customers"). Customers shall not use the XXXX Service for spamming, junk mail, bulk sending or posting of unsolicited messages, or any use of distribution lists that include people who have not given specific permission to be included in such distribution process. Customers shall not use the XXXX Service to transmit any threatening, harassing, libellous or obscene material, or material of any nature which could be deemed to be offensive. Customers shall not use the XXXX Service in a manner which violates any city, state, national or international law or regulation, or which fails to comply with accepted Internet protocol. Customer shall at all times provide XXXX with accurate information. Customer shall immediately notify XXXX of any security breach in or unauthorized use of Customer's account. Customers shall not attempt to interfere in anyway with XXXX networks or network security, or attempt to use the XXXX Service to gain unauthorized access to any other computersystem. Customers shall not interfere in anyway with another Customers use of the XXXX Service. Customer shall not resell, rent, lease, grant a security interest in, or make commercial use of the XXXX services without the express written consent of XXXX. XXXX retains the right to terminate any and all products or services provided to an XXXX Customer if it determines that such Customer has failed to comply with any of the terms of the Acceptable Use Policy. Thank you XXXX Customer Service > NOTE: If you read the above carefully, you will see that, by the very fact that they mention both words, this company makes a distinction between "spamming" and "unsolicited email," but forbids both. That's an important detail to remember throughout this discussion. Also to be noted is the fact that, although the above text states that "a customer service representative will assist you." no one from that company ever replied to my emails during the four days that this discussion lasted. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOW, HERE IS MY EMAIL RESPONSE FOLLOWING THAT NOTIFICATION: Dear Service Provider: I acknowledge your reasons for this email as being properly founded on the Terms that I have formally accepted. Having said this, however, I would greatly appreciate it if you would hear an explanation which I believe mitigates my action. As in all human affairs, there are always several sides to an issue, isn't there? As you are no doubt aware, there is much fanatism on the opposite sides of this particular issue. What I have done is so out of the ordinary that it will require a long explanation. Also please keep in mind, as you read, that I am a mature 60-year old man, and a Canadian of French European origin. That too has a bearing on my thinking and actions. First of all, as the attachments to this email and my web sites themselves testify, I too am very concerned about spamming, defined as large scale bulk emailing. Much damage has been caused and continues to be caused by unthinking and greedy large scale bulk emailers and special bulk email services such as this one (NNNNN - at http://zzzzzzzzz.com/), and, as a result, all Netizens suffer from their actions. Shouldn't we go after these services and large scale emailers instead of suspending or terminating service to those Netizens who, like me, are aware of the problem, have investigated both sides of the issue, and are trying their very best to find non-offensive solutions to a vexing problem? If you visit my web site, you will find a section there devoted to anti-spamming. It's on page 5-GIC.html. The reason why I sent out *less than 100* emails using my XXXX address is that a) that address describes my *free* service most adequately, b) I am only attempting to clean out and update my mailer's address book. Over the two years now that I have been on the Net, I have accumulated close to 2,000 addresses in that Address Book. It's time to clean it up. Where do these addresses come from? 1. from my personal contacts on the Net. 2. from collecting visible cc addresses off emails continuously sent to me by various Netpreneurs. 3. from introductions to other people by people I communicated with at least once over that 2-year period. I could simply have eliminated all of the more doubtful addresses (#2 above). However, wouldn't that be foolish? After all, I do expect to make friends all over the world on the Net and to reach that large majority of Netizens who, like me, are not strongly opposed to unsolicited emails. I also plan on making a decent living by being in one particular world-wide business. The Global Information Centre that I created 2-3 weeks ago is - first of all - a VALUE which is offered to any Netizen in the world. Your company banner is there too since it is such a valuable service to anyone in the world. The secondary purpose of this also valuable service which I offer is to provide the background for my only money-making business: web page hosting and creation, to which I have grafted other natural opportunities - all expected to provide some form of marketing support for that business; support such as banner swaps and search engine promotion services. To come back to my primary purpose and the object of your email... here is how I proceeded to update my address book. I first exported my entire book to a MS Notepad-like software and then imported this into a bulk email software since that was the only way I could sort out the names alphabetically for easier subsequent removal of the bad addresses, and clean out the more risky addresses. There would be nothing but .com and .net addresses left before mailing. In fact, that's all there was in the first place. Once they were in that software, I broke down the 2000 addresses into small files, each containing less than 100 addresses. I was planning to send out these small files at the rate of only one a day. I suppose you received complaints right away since I have only mailed out two such files. Now, if you look at the CONTENT of my email message, I am confident that you will agree it was a pretty innocuous message, whose sole purpose was to introduce my valuable free information service and give an idea of the quality of my web page creation service. It was very much in the tone and style of several others which I received from some very well known companies. It was not of a commercial or imposing nature at all. And the same can be said of my three web sites. As I said and I hope we can agree, there is much fanaticism on all sides of this issue. Isn't it time to seek out a reasonable, middle-ground solution?... starting with discriminating more finely between the unthinking large scale bulk emailers and the moderate advertisers who try to find the proper balance between no advertising (and no visitors) and the need to get their sites known? Believe me, over the last two years, I have tried everything possible to draw visitors to my previous sites: search engine registrations, appropriate newsgroups, banner swaps... the works. The result - hit rate progression - was hardly worth all that effort. Considering the enormous monthly influx of new web site registrations, there is no question that some form of unsolicited email advertising needs to be added to these different methods. (Even for absolutely non-commercial sites.) Unless, of course, the entire Internet community agrees to completely ban this method so we can all be back to a level playing field. However, we both know that, because of the very nature of the Internet, this will never happen. Not soon anyway. In the meantime, only those who continue to bulk email indiscriminately and on a vast scale will continue to benefit and to wreck havoc on all people. Their actions will keep on reflecting on even the moderate Netpreneurs. I know that, as a vocal proponent of the middle ground, I am in a very small minority. But I believe I also speak for a very large majority. Doesn't this quiet majority too deserve some consideration? Actually, they are the very group that Netpreneurs wish to identify and reach; those who have a higher tolerance to unsolicited emails, largely because they themselves are in some sort of business and understand the need for advertising, or because they are still curious about what the Internet can offer them, if only in the way of information. I do my share to "educate" the big bulk emailers whenever I can (please read my copy on this web site: Advertising Tips as an example) and read my message (below) to the [NNNN] people... Shouldn't we all do the same? Doesn't that web site - mine - deserve to get better hits than it has since it was born, seven months ago? How should I go about it, do you think? If you can think of a better solution for my address book updating too, please share your thoughts on it with me. Right now, I believe I have pretty well exhausted all of my options if you remain inflexible about that no-spamming/no unsolicited emails rule, under any circumstances and no matter what. Spamming, the word itself seems to have different meanings for different people. That does not make the resolving of this issue any easier. Please read the email below [to NNNN]* and visit my web sites. That may be the only way you can appreciate my own side of the story. Sincerely, Michel Alain Gourbault (Toronto) P.S. - Incidentally, a few months ago I have also posted several messages to the anti-spamming newsgroups (under the name si@tout.com) in an attempt to understand how they feel, and why, and to suggest possible solutions. That's when I realized the depth of the unconditional positions taken by many people on that side of the issue. If no one wants to hear "the other side" of the story, we are all in big trouble indeed. At about the same time, I also subscribed to the moderated D-Spam mailing list, for the same reason. Needless to say, I did not find much "moderation" in that group either. Both the large bulk emailers and the unconditional anti-spammers want to rule the Net. I hear that that's how most wars start. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MY EMAIL TO THE BULK EMAIL SERVICE WHOSE WEB ADVERTISING CONTENT I PERSONALLY OBJECTED TO: To: support@zzzzz.com Subject: Question re. your service From: info-world@cyberservices.com (Alain) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 17:22:59 GMT Gentlemen: I received your email invitation today, Nov. 24th, and went over to your main web site to learn the details. Obviously, you made your offer so attractive that most Netpreneurs with little experience would order your $&&& package without a second thought. However, I know that there are considerable problems associated with bulk emailing on the scale that you are encouraging. All ISPs in Canada are monitoring their service 7 days a week and, further, they exchange information on spammers. Several months ago, I got into hot water with my ISP for sending out just under 500 emails* in one session. There is no way at all that I could send 5,000 emails in a day... so, 250,000!! >>>[NOTE: *That was a message of a non-commercial nature, on the subject of justice.]<<< Question: Can you honestly say that the same is not true in the States and every other country, and that you are not abusing the credulity of the lesser experienced Net marketers? Also, do you realize the long term consequences of sending that amount of emails when you have an increasing number of people doing so on a daily basis? At one point, recently, I was receiving up to 80 unsolicited messages per day. There was no way I could find the time to read that many emails. Unlike many I am not against bulk emailing, but my reason tells me that if done continuously on the scale that you suggest, by the increasing number of people that your type of service can attract, there will soon come a point where all Netizens, or at least a vast majority of them, will be completely turned off by this flood of variegated emails, with the consequence that business in general will suffer, and/or tough legislation will be brought down upon us all, all around the world. Yes, bulk emailing works... now... but let us all be a little reasonable about it. What your service engenders is GREED and more GREED in a world that has far too much of that already. Net-based business too needs to maintain some sort of ethics. Don't you think? For a more reasonable approach, may I suggest you visit my web site, at The Global Information Centre (http://members.tripod.com/~si_utt/GIC.html) and Business-Phase I (http://members.tripod.com/~si_utt/phz1biz.html) and check out the autoresponder copy, at ag-start@spenet.com . I do use bulk mail software too, but nowhere on the scale that you recommend. (I use it merely because it has some convenient features not found in my regular mailer.) Who wants American greed to permeate the entire world? Business without ethics and forethought can only be destructive in the long run. When you are doing business on the Internet, you are reaching out to people all over the world, not just Americans, and the ethics of other nationals may be a lot different than yours. Michel Alain Gourbault, Toronto, Canada -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOW, MY EMAIL TO MY TEAM IN A NETWORK MARKETING VENTURE with cc. TO Mr. So-and-So and Bcc to the Bulk E-mail Service: Here are my statistics so far for 2 mailings totalling 164 addresses. a. No flames directed to me. Not a single one. b. 38 undeliverables. c. 11 more visits to my site. d. I tested two messages, both based on the MailRobo EZdozit concept but worded differently. e. I cannot tell at this time which version drew the "complaints" mentioned by XXXX. As I said, personally I received no complaints. f. Now, what does the above say, statistically, about the majority who neither complained nor visited (yet?) my site? One mailing was done using my regular mailer, Forte Agent. The second one, to 88 addresses, was done through my bulk email software (whose "send" operation I finally managed to understand this morning.) Now, one of you, my non-US uplines, thought that sending 5,000 emails daily could not be much of a problem. To you, I offer the result of this experience. And to you, one of my downlines and one of my uplines, who are doing bulk emailing on a grander scale than I did, I already offered copy of my remarks to the NNNN people. I would add to that what I wrote, months ago, well before joining P****P*****, on this site: "Advertising Tips" (http://members.tripod.com/~si_utt/adv-tips.html) based on my earlier experiences with other network marketing opportunities. Where is the super fine line between the two extremes? Can one be found? It is certainly no easy task, but I still believe that it is most important to find it... for the sake of peace and harmony on the 'Net. For now, the dominant force is the American mindset. They seem to want us all to follow their lead and think and behave like them. What I know is that I cannot do that, even if I wanted to. So, what is my option? To leave them to their ways, and get out of any Internet business myself? Comments, from any and all of you, will of course be most welcome. Your forever "communicating" team mate, -Alain- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3rd EMAIL TO MY TEAM, with cc. TO THE XXXX Company and Bcc TO THE NNNN Bulk E-mail Service: Continuation of this discussion, for the enlightenment of all of us, US and non-US marketers... I hope. Because they are the dominant force on the Internet, many Americans are currently spreading a disease all over the world. That disease is called "extremism." Fanaticism could be another name for it. They adopt either one of two extremes for their own society, and that's what they are also -unwittingly rather than intentionally- exporting via the Internet. Their country's 2-party system is a good illustration of that American Way. They leave no room for a sensible Middle Way or middle ground. Should we all accept and adopt the same system, whether it goes against the grain of our own respective cultures? Is there a way to bring at least some influential Americans to the realisation that there is the possibility of a responsible, reasonable middle way? Or should we all give up on that goal because it is too difficult or time-consuming a task and we all have better things to do? I am not a reformer, just a seeker of a "better way" in everything. That's why I keep on trying to get through to both sides on the spamming issue. Shouldn't we all at least *try* to carve that middle ground for ourselves and then offer that as a better alternative to the current, mostly American, war factions? As I said, I've investigated both sides of the issue (even its three major aspects) and attempted to reason with the two opposite sides. I admit to failure in these attempts. Why did I fail? Because logic has no effect on people with an emotional temperament, or driven by greed, or who are thoroughly brainwashed, or - because I am a lone voice out there... with no support from that big, silent majority that does not take sides at all on this issue... for their own reasons... possibly, because they have learned to become so pragmatic that, with them, reality means accepting the situation as it exists at any given time, without seeking to improve upon it. The fight between these two warring factions is hiding the fact that there could be a better way. However, considering what I see happening with the justice system in my native country too (see my stand on that issue, at Justice) I am beginning to think that it is completely ridiculous for any nation to teach philosophy, ethics, and particularly logic... because our modern societies sure don't operate along these lines and according to these ideals. As I see it, the major obstacle to a saner world is the inflexibility shown by many people in authority and that particular dominance and influence of the American way around the world. I can only hope that the rest of the world will soon realize the dangers that this represents for the survival of their own cultures. I admire a lot of things in the American way, but this inflexibilty and focus on extremes is not one of them. As a final note, I just hope that Mr. So-and-So, of the XXXX company, will see fit to give me the addresses of those who are supposed to have complained about my mailings. Otherwise, there is no way I can remove those addresses from my address book, and the whole purpose of trying to purge my book will have come to naught. Good night all ... -Alain- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [MY 2nd EMAIL TO THE XXXX COMPANY with cc TO my Team and bcc to the Bulk E-mail Company]: Dear Mr. [So-and-So]: Here is more on the same topic: what I wrote to an American marketer and friend of mine. Hello John, Good to hear from you. As for your offer, sorry but I have learned my lesson with UTT: no more hi-tech stuff for me. And remember, I am not a US resident. Also, remember the major reason why I left UTT: I will never, ever, repeat: never, ever, have anything to do with a US company that requires me to provide a US address and especially a SSN and having to deal with your infamous IRS. Now I am only interested in "already global and very simple MLM's". Nothing else. I found one - already in 90 countries after just 4 months in business - and I will stay with that. By all means, please keep in touch, though. Interestingly, during my discussion on spamming, I've finally identified what I believe is the crucial difference between Americans and Canadians, and what makes it difficult for me to adjust to the American Way - of being and thinking. Look at our respective political systems: in the US you only have 2 parties. Your only choices are "right of center" or "extreme right". You have no left and no middle. In contrast, in Canada we have a strong, broad and most often re-elected party in the center: the Liberal Party; the left and right do not often have any significant power. I believe that that typifies our national characters, and this lack of middle ground in US politics defines everything in the American psyche. You always swing from one extreme to another - from one excess to another, from the best to the worst, and vice versa. That's what gives your society that dynamic youthfulness, creativity and adventurous spirit. But our opposite stance and "signature" in Canada gives our society far greater stability and a sense of balance. No wonder our two countries need each other: they each have an important ingredient that the other lacks. There is much to be gained by this constant exchange on both sides of the border. Unfortunately, because of the great 1:10 imbalance in demographics, the US do not listen much to what comes from my side of the border... or from any other quarter for that matter. Think about it and share your thoughts on this observation if you find the time. I'll always look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Alain -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Back to my talk with you, Mr. [So-and-So]: When we deal with Americans, we have to keep the above in mind. You are a people given to excesses, greed and extremes. On the whole, you have little sense of balance and moderation. Spamming on a grand scale is a typically American phenomenon which could only have originated in the US. From there, it is spreading to the rest of the world, but the world is not responsible for this phenomenon; certain American elements (individuals and companies) are. Likewise and for the same reasons, the Internet could only have originated in the States. However, it is now a worldwide tool which is used as much for commercial endeavours as for educational purposes and friendly exchanges. It is an irreversible fact. Also, the Internet is no longer your exclusive tool - that too is an undeniable fact -, and that requires some adjustment in thinking on your part, as Americans, both as individuals and as people in authority, don't you think? Total prohibition on unsolicited emails can only give birth to and reinforce the other extreme. "NNNN" and Sanford Wallace are good examples of that; and there are many others. And there will be many more unless a proper solution is found... soon. Remember the days of prohibition on alcohol in the US? What did that lead to? History, and past individual experiences should teach Americans the fine art of moderation. I hope it will, one of these days. How much disruption to your operation can less than 100 emails cause? It is fewer than many regular mailing lists have - including the D-Spam List. Complaints are largely prompted by your header invitation for a certain type of individual to complain. What constitutes "email abuse"? The definition varies with every individual, both in the US and elsewhere. And, again, may I remind your complainers of what I wrote earlier: they have tools at their disposal if they don't want to receive any unsolicited email. If they don't use them, they are largely responsible for their misfortune. Do they really think that marketers, and others who merely announce a free service, send them emails with the intention of harrassing them? Do they really think that? Marketers, even the big spammers, are not stupid enough to intentionally try to reach the "wrong" people for their business or other endeavours. I am sure you know that as well as I do, Mr. [So-and-So]. Your service is valuable to me. I don't want to lose it because of clauses which you use to protect your company against "true" abuses. What I ask of you is to show a little flexibility in your rules where moderate subscribers/ advertisers are concerned. Sincerely, Michel Alain Gourbault "Suspended for a legal technicality but no sound reason" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MY LAST EMAIL, WITH SUBJECT: "MY FINAL CHAPTER ON THE SPAMMING ISSUE" Mr. [So-and-So]: As I aimed to show in my entire discussion, spamming was born in the US and is an American problem. It should be solved by Americans. But the perspective and thinking of other nationals could hopefully help. Rather than resorting to the usual American way, ie. going to the Courts or government agencies, or handling the problem in an authoritarian or paternalistic way - either of which hardly ever solves anything -, why not try the following approach: D-I-A-L-O-G. An honest dialog between people who hold opposite views. Starting with one-on-one: XXXX <--> (not vs.) NNNN. Then enlarging the dialog to two-on-two, say YYYY and XXXX <--> AAAA and NNNN, then three-on-three, four-on-four, five-on-five, etc... until everybody who matters is involved, all points of view are aired, and you all together come up with a reasonable balance, somewhere in the middle? As you probably realize, Mr. [So-and-So], intolerance to any unsolicited email has bred those companies that now feed the large scale spamming. Faced with this intolerance, companies such as Sanford Wallace's have seen an opportunity to fill a gap and offer a correspondingly needed service. Others have followed suit. But ask Mr. Wallace what near-criminal acts certain intolerant anti-spamming nuts have perpetrated recently against him and his family. I don't have to tell you, sir, what the root cause of violence is in your society. We both know that it is intolerance to differences and other points of view, as well as greed and a political leadership who prefers to listen to influential lobbies and vocal minorities than to the voice of the majority of the people. Isn't Dialog - and a meeting of the minds in the middle - a Better Way? For ISPs, one possible solution would be to offer a series of increasingly more expensive service plans to their subscribers, depending on the type of use that the latter intend to make of their service ... allowing for moderate unsolicited emailing up to a reasonable limit based on their specific bandwidth capabilities. This would bring that type of service pretty much in line with postal direct marketing. Cost is the limiting factor in postal direct mail. The same principle could be used to impose natural restrictions on email spamming. It would also encourage very sharp targeting. The extreme to be avoided in that case, though, would be to set so high a threshold cost that only the wealthy Netizens or large companies would benefit from such a system. This system should work well if all anti-spammers are properly informed of how and where they can register their opposition to receiving any unsolicited emails, or what software to use to sort it out so that they be able to trash it all easily if they wished. My Forte Agent mailer has such a filtering capability and it does work well for me. Sincerely and hoping for a prompt resolution of this suspended animation, Michel Alain Gourbault A crusader for common sense, balance and moderation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE EPILOGUE As at November 27, the permanent email address company had not yet responded once to my remarks, comments and suggestions, and was still keeping me in suspense as to the possible outcome. Apparently, they were also holding any mail addressed to me at info-world@cyberservices.com. To find out what was happening to my mail sent to that address, I sent a small message, but received no response - neither from a human nor auto-generated. Because of this lack of response, on November 29 I cancelled my service permanently with that company, and will, of course, never again recommend them to anyone. Especially since they did not even respond to my mails informing them that there was a bug in their advertising graphic (which was part of their link exchange program.) >READER, I ask you: Is this company (and others like it) part of the Solution... or part of the Problem? [ADDENDUM, November 29, 1997] Interestingly, after I sent them my cancellation, their customer service (not Mr. So-and-So) replied promptly - the same day. I am waiting to see if they will refund my $14.95 per address, or if they feel they are entitled to keep my money because of my "crime": the violation of their unrealistic Acceptable Use Policy. When I have their answer to that question, I'll put this matter to rest ... but, of course, not the spamming issue. Final notes: On November 30th, the customer service informed me that there was no charge for trying their service for the short period that I did. On December 1st, Mr. So-and-So replied to my last messages in the following manner. (Note that a) he still did not address the issue of the bug in their graphic, b) did not give me the addresses of the "complainers"; c) made it appear as if they had terminated me instead of me cancelling, d) his "explanation" for their silence also speaks volumes about the attitude of this company. If there was to be no one available during the long weekend, why did he choose the day before that long holiday to send me that suspension notification? On Sunday, there was someone in customer service.). To: biz_e@postone.com Subject: Re: Alain -> The bug in your advertising graphic... From: Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 09:48:42 -0500 We don't give people the silent treatment. You wrote this over a holiday weekend, so I wasn't in the office. There's also nothing more to investigate. You violated our acceptable use policy, and your service has been terminated. Your long, drawn-out letters don't change that. >That was in reply to the following: At 04:37 AM 11/29/97 GMT, you wrote: "Mr. [So-and-So]: Really! how long is that silent treatment going to last? How long can it take to investigate a complaint?... or was there even one? If you don't want to give me the addresses of the people from whom you claim to have received complaints, I hope you realize I won't be able to take them out of my address book and may again, unknowingly, send them another email sometime in the future. Sir, if it is your policy to not reveal the addresses of complainers, I am sure you can see that such a policy would not make any sense. Anyhow, my whole discussion on this quest for a sensible solution to spamming is now available on my web site. It includes everything that I have been discussing in my monologue with you over these past four days. Sincerely, M.A.G. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> [previous email, as a reminder, since I still have not heard from you >> about it.] > Another point I would like to have clarified: > Shortly after I included your bigger advertising graphic on page 5 of my Global Information Centre, I notified you by email that there was something wrong with either your graphic or its server. When I clicked on the graphic, Netscape gave me the following warning: "A network error occurred while Netscape was receiving data. (Network error: Connection reset by peer.) Try connecting again" > I never received a response from you about it, and the same problem exists with the same graphic on your own web site. Which means, of course, that people are advertising a non-functional service, with the result that even though they advertise your company they cannot get the benefit stated on your page, namely eligibility to your Link Program Grand Prizes. I am not implying that this was the intended result, but I am a little surprised that you did not respond to my email informing you of this bug, nor corrected the bug on your page. > So, until I hear from you on both issues, I have no choice but to remove your non-operating graphic from my web site. > Sincerely, > M.A.G. " -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO SUM UP... I have been on the Net full time for the past two years and have researched the topic in question throughout that time, starting with a long discussion with eight-twelve people in the admin.net-abuse ng for 2-1/2 months back in Nov-Dec 95 and Jan 96. I have no ulterior motive: I have stated all of my reasons here clearly and honestly. I sincerely wish to find a proper balanced solution for all parties concerned. I do not believe that legislation is the answer. Moderation should be a far better way. The opt-in/opt-out approach that I used in a previous test mailing of 51 addresses produced an even split between "Removes" and "OK to Keep" replies so far, with no comment - not one - on the part of those requesting removal. (Long-established companies who have used and are still using this approach have successfully built long mailing lists of opt-in subscribers.) I see that as a sign that a lot of ordinary netizens (those who are not in authority, nor unconditionally on either side of the issue) readily accept this type of approach. I also honestly believe that these people are by far the largest majority of Net users, yet they are not being given a fair hearing by those in positions of control or authority. I will simply close on the remark that the "no-unsolicited email whatsoever" policies are sending even the "responsible" advertisers into the arms and clutches of the bulk emailing services. Which, I think, runs counter to the intent of all anti-spamming policies - and expectations, including mine. Also, since these services are quite expensive (but not as much as the opt-in mailing lists - who, as a result of the no U.E. policies, have a near monopoly on that sort of lists), the incentive is there to send out more unsolicited emails than one would need to in a more balanced Net environment. This, in turn, fosters greed, adds to the spamming problem... and conveniently keeps the frustration spiral going. I say "conveniently" because we all know what people in authority like to make of "popular frustration." It always seems to lead to their favourite solution: legislation ... "in the interest and for the good of all people". (You bet!) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I guarantee confidentiality to those who write to me to express their opinions in a constructive and cool-headed manner. I am especially interested to hear from the large "ignored majority". If you agree with my thinking, may I ask you to please spread the word, starting with your own ISP, by referring people to this discussion. As members of the large majority, we all have a stake in this issue being resolved in a reasonable manner. Your input can only be very useful in achieving this end. You can also help by signing the following PETITION. "Thinking outside the box". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Petition to ISPs and others for - Moderation, Change and Common Sense* A WORLD WIDE PETITION for MODERATION and CHANGE submitted by THE NETIZENS FOR CHANGE AND COMMON SENSE. This PETITION ties in with the following "Broad and Detailed Discussion on the Spamming Issue. Although it will be delivered to all North American ISPs, it is also a plea to ALL Netizens of good will and sound mind. ^^ Large scale SPAMMING cannot be allowed to continue. It must be stopped - because it reflects and impacts on ALL of us, the vast MAJORITY of NETIZENS who use the Information Superhighway RESPONSIBLY. ^^ Because Spamming has such an adverse impact on servers all around the world, it is very much up to "US", the responsible 'Net crusaders for common sense, to put a stop to it by "educating" the big spammers about the short-term and long-term damage that they are causing all over the place. ^^ That damage, more than anything else, is what is causing ISPs, all over the world, to IGNORE US because they are all so busy trying to control the spamming fires or floods that they cannot find the time to THINK. Especially to think of US, "the Others", the Netizens who believe in moderation and common sense. Friends, Fellow Netizens of Sound Mind, it is our responsibility to talk our more impetuous, careless, clueless or selfish brethren into showing the necessary restraint. LET US MEET THIS RESPONSIBILITY BY SENDING THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE TO ALL THOSE WHO SEND US UCEs: (From now on, don't delete any unsolicited commercial email. Just collect them in a special folder, then, when you find the time, copy the following message, paste it on these UCEs and send that as your reply.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Fellow Netpreneur, Do you know there's an ISP's Spammer Hunter out to get you right now? Do you know that you can be served a writ for spamming the Net on a grand scale and putting an ISP temporarily out of business in the process? Do you know that almost all North American ISPs are so fed up with the big spammers that they are pushing hard for legislation, both in the US and Canada? Have a good look here at what the "www.cauce.org" group is planning for all of us. As well as the DMA, on the other side of the issue. Is that what YOU want? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't get me wrong : I am on your side if you're a reasonable marketer - not one of those who send out tens of thousands of emails every day or every week. But if you are one of the latter, please realize that your actions reflect and impact on every responsible marketer. Do you really want to jeopardize the future of *all* marketers just for your own short-sighted and selfish ends? If you are a REASONABLE and RESPONSIBLE marketer, please join us in the "good fight." Read "A Broad Scope and Detailed Discussion on the Spamming Issue: A Plea for the Sound of Mind" (ie. the vast majority of Netizens out there that nobody wants to listen to), at: http://www.tout.com/spam/1discuss.htm (Also available by email.) I am a marketer too, and I wanted to send out just 100 unsolicited emails per day. Would you believe that I am not allowed to do that... and that if I do, I can get in as much trouble with ISPs as the careless, ignorant, selfish or greedy large scale spammer? Does that make sense? I want to change that. That's what my "good fight" is about. It should be the top priority cause of *every* responsible marketer right now. Join me in spreading the word about the web site Discussion on the Spamming Issue. YOU have a stake in this too. It's YOUR future too! Read the Discussion carefully, and if you agree with our views, send the following email to biz_e@post1.com with the words "ADD ME TO YOUR PETITION LIST" in the subject line. In the BODY area, type in: I AGREE WITH YOUR VIEWS. Or include any comments that you see fit. That Petition will then be submitted to hundreds of ISPs - to have them change their ToS to allow for "reasonable" marketing approaches or test trials such as the one presented in this autoresponder: mailto:ag-start@spenet.com Thanks for your understanding of what matters for all of us. -[YOUR NAME AND LOCATION]- A crusader for moderation and common sense -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My fellow Netizen, now that you've read this, and hopefully the whole discussion on the previous 4 pages, please do us both a favour by signing your name on the petition. I am collecting the names and addresses and will send them all, in batches of 500, to all North American ISPs. You have my word on it. READ RIGHT HERE WHAT THE PRO-LEGISLATION NETIZENS ON BOTH SIDES ARE DOING AND HOPING TO ACCOMPLISH IN CONGRESS... If you are in favour of a MIDDLE-GROUND SOLUTION, are YOU anywhere in their picture? Are they thinking about you at all? Do they even think you might possibly exist? LET OUR VOICE TOO BE HEARD! TOMORROW IT WILL BE TOO LATE. YOU MUST TAKE A STAND N-O-W! Re: THE SPAMMING ISSUE. TO ALL NORTH AMERICAN ISPs: A PETITION FOR CHANGE AND FLEXIBILITY. I ADD MY VOICE TO THAT OF THE MANY OF US WHO UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF SPAMMING AND ARE ACTIVELY CRUSADING FOR CHANGE - IN EVERY WAY WE CAN. (Your comments - optional) (Your name) <<< (Votre nom) (Your email address) <<< (Votre adresse email) (Your country) <<< (Votre pays) THANK YOU - FOR ALL OF US! *************************************************************** P.S.: I did find a solution, at long last. I will share it with those who write to me after taking the time to read the entire discussion and who comment on it. -Alain- (biz_e@post1.com) Copyright 1997 by Michel Alain Gourbault. This document may be distributed in unmodified form only, and may not be distributed by means of unsolicited email. Learn the secrets from the Pros. Free ebook on How to Bulk Email Tell-a-Friend