Spam unsubscribe links no longer considered harmful
essays.dayah.com
essays.dayah.com
I think the author's claim is correct. For emails that aren't patently absurd and contain a mailing address, clicking unsubscribe links seems like a good idea. Unfortunately for me, I'm stuck with the other 96%.
Unfortunately for me, I'm stuck with the other 96%.
I would say "Fortunately for me, Google is stuck with the rest."About once a year, spammers find a way around Google's spam filters for 3-4 weeks, which means I might see a non-flagged spam message show up in my mailbox every couple of days. Beyond that, I don't even think about spam anymore (including worrying about false positives, which I haven't seen in years [if at all]).
Above and beyond everything else positive or negative about Google, this one thing will cause me to always have a warm place in my heart for Google.
Not suggesting that Google staff are reading all your mail but they're getting something out of the content there aren't they?
Do they parse it for trend words and use those advertising to you?
Anyone else wonder if unsubscribe links couldn't be shifted to the mail client somehow? That way, they could be positioned in a uniform place and handled in a simple way so that you didn't have to scrounge through an email footer looking for the 5px unsub link, and then go through that horrible 'You need a password to unsubscribe' process half the time.
I'm imagining an 'unsubscribe' button up near the top of the email, maybe based on mail headers or something else, that just worked. You clicked it and you were off the list. (Might need ways to verify the identity of the subscriber, but I'd hope this could be handled better than it is now.)
Would love to see it in all mail clients, and useful for all subscriptions. A 1998 RFC and a basic attempt from one webmail provider is a bit depressing in 2010 when most of us get hammered by these sorts of messages.
I don't think I'm alone in refusing to believe that the processes here (and all around email) couldn't be improved!
And I would point out that requiring a password or a verification email is almost certainly a violation of CAN-SPAM.
If the spam picks back up, it might not be worth the time.
That said, for me, spam is hardly a problem with the SpamBayes plugin for Outlook. It does get a few false positives, but none that badly. A check every few days catches anything. It also flags a lot of subscribed-for spam, which is OK by me as I don't see why I need a monthly update on my frequent flyer miles, something I can always go looking for.
(Spam isn't about being relevant, it's about volume. Even if you can't actually buy the product being advertised, you still have to delete the mail. So while this is a little helpful, it's doesn't really make much difference in spam volume.)
Just like with the failure micropayments (see http://openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2000/12/19/micropayments.html), it just requires too much mental analysis to make an educated guess about whether an unsubscribe link is legit, versus confirming my address as "working" and increasing its use by other spammers (e.g., inclusion in sold lists of "verified working email accounts").
Due to the confusion, I have to fall back on the KISS rule: When in doubt, do not provide my email address, or the fact that my email address is a working one, to someone I don't know (or who just spammed me, no matter how much "in the light" they may seem to be).