> It’s important to clarify at first: I’ve personally typed and carefully went through every single email I sent. Talk about scalable, huh?
She goes on to suggest a number of things that involve research and effort that puts a natural limit on how many she can send.
If "spammers" were to follow this advice and take the time to research me and my business, follow me on social media, and then type up an individualised e-mail to my business account, spam would not be a huge problem.
In part because I have a lower threshold for what I consider acceptable to send to my business account, and partly because if they invest that much effort in each e-mail, the volume would drop far down.
EDIT: Pronouns...
(UK law here, implementing EC directive)
> a person shall neither transmit, nor instigate the transmission of, unsolicited communications for the purposes of direct marketing by means of electronic mail unless the recipient of the electronic mail has previously notified the sender that he consents for the time being to such communications being sent by, or at the instigation of, the sender.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2426/regulation/22/m...
It's unlikely anyone would bother with someone who sent 600 emails, especially if she agrees not to send any more to an individual that complains to her.
Edit: bprieto's point about individuals vs businesses is very relevant -- the emails were sent to marketing companies, so they aren't spam under this directive.
I think if this is true then it's really not spamming. At least if someone was to do proper research and mail me without being too salesy (e.g. not including a link) then I would be okay with it.
Spamming is more like mailing a hundred people without trying to communicate just trying to make people click a link.
Spam or spam = unsolicited emails