Hacker News Reader

Comment by monkeyspaw | Hacker News Reader

I would consider saying "please reply to this message to unsubscribe" easily accessible, legitimate, and free.

I think spam is more complex than just saying "spam is spam". Especially in b2b (see the other comment about pharmaceutical reps).

There is a factor that includes relevance (negative correlation with spam). Another factor is automation versus doing it by hand. Another factor is the intent of the person who publishes their email. Another factor is whether the sender stops sending messages once requested. Another factor is the existence of a previous relationship.

Anyhow, I have one more question: can any message that is sent without automation (i.e., I type the message specifically to a recipient) be considered spam?

View on HN

> I would consider saying "please reply to this message to unsubscribe" easily accessible, legitimate, and free.

You're missing the point that by replying, the recipient establishes a relationship with the spammer -- he confirms that his is a working e-mail address, and he invites more mailings to that address. This is why security professionals warn to never reply to a spam e-mail.

"Don't Reply to Spam - Spam Control Tip":

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/don't-reply-spam.html

"Don't Respond to Spam: Here's Why":

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2376031,00.asp

> I think spam is more complex than just saying "spam is spam".

It's very clearly defined, so there's no mystery about it. That's why I say it that way.

> Anyhow, I have one more question: can any message that is sent without automation (i.e., I type the message specifically to a recipient) be considered spam?

Yes, of course it can. Why? Because if that were accepted, spammers would hire poor third-world people to type out spam messages at one cent per message or less. Therefore, any unsolicited e-mail, meaning sent to someone who hasn't invited it, is spam.

"You're missing the point that by replying, the recipient establishes a relationship with the spammer -- he confirms that his is a working e-mail address, and he invites more mailings to that address. This is why security professionals warn to never reply to a spam e-mail."

Can you describe an opt-out mechanism that doesn't provide a spammer with exactly that same piece of "working email address" information?

If they're sketchy enough that they'd mis-use an "unsubscribe me" email as an "invitation to more mailings", surely clicking an "opt out" link would be treated the same?

(Personally, I'm happy to click opt out links for mail that's arrived by dedicated mass-mailing companies like MailChimp or Campaign Monitor - they've got a strong business case to not annoy email recipients, and although I as a Campaign Monitor user can easily generate a list of email addresses that have opted out of any of my mailing lists, if I were to abuse that list via Campaign Monitor, they'd shut me down pretty quickly)

> Can you describe an opt-out mechanism that doesn't provide a spammer with exactly that same piece of "working email address" information?

An opt-out link carries only the email address, not the entire email header, so it conveys the absolute minimum information (and it can be visited independently of the email, by copying the link out of the email). Also, visiting an opt-out page is different than replying to an email for some complex legal reasons.

If a spammer ignores an opt-out request delivered to a Web page, he is in a very different position than if he replies to an e-mail sent by someone who doesn't know to avoid replying to a spam mailing.

The bottom line is that a spammer can say, "they emailed me, then I replied to what I thought was a customer's email." And this has been tried countless times. With an opt-out link, this dodge is removed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com