calambrac, I personally agree with you about the wording/tone of the current letter. I would like them to take a look at changing that, although no one will ever be delighted to get that letter.
Bingo. It's optimized to stop spammers, not be inoffensive to false positives.
What I find distressing (and would find even more so had I been the victim) is that Google refuses to to identify which part of TOS have been violated. Police and courts have to specify which parts of criminal code a defendant is accused of violating. Can we not get similar fairness from corporate America?
Are you afraid that such clarifications would give too much useful info to actual spammers?
Well, maybe a slight edge. But I might compare this to the dilemma that clarifying legal defendants their constitutional rights ("Miranda" in the U.S.) deprives law enforcement of some opportunities to tap some useful self-incrimination: It's part of the cost of valuing Constitutional rights. Would Google dare to offer its customers some Consumer Bill of Rights?