[SpamCop-List] 'Script' for 'educating' spammers?

[Eönwë]

>From my point of view, there are two kinds of spammers - the scumbags
that know exactly what they're doing, and what people think of it, and
the clue-impaired who were sold a bill of goods.  The latter can be
educated with a good presentation or six, and turned around.  My
attempt at the Flash Design Team didn't go as well as I'd hoped (I
think they may be scumbags making noises like clue-impaired; see my
other post on them), and a big part of that was that my presentation
wasn't as smooth as I'd have liked.  So, I sat down and wrote a
'script' that I could use to cover the issues.  It's by no means
complete; I'd like input from the folks here toward improving it,
completing it, and making it overall a better shot at 'working'.
Remember that this is targetted at the clue-impaired; the scumbag will
ignore anything short of termination of service - and will pay
attention to that only as long as it takes to reestablish service,
preferably at a 'bulletproof' host.  So, herewith for comment:

= - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - =

Recently, a marketing campaign involving unsolicited electronic mail
was conducted by your organization or on behalf thereof.

Most users of electronic mail do not wish to receive unsolicted
advertising via electronic mail.

Are you familiar with "opt-in" electronic mail advertising?

"Opt-in" electronic mail advertising requires that your organization
has itself contacted potential customers, and received explicit
permission to send advertising to each of them via electronic mail.
You should retain records of this permission indefinitely as proof
that the user ddid in fact grant this permission.  You cannot buy an
"opt-in" list; just because someone has been given permission to send
advertisements to a user does not imply blanket permission for anyone
to send advertisements for other products, whether unrelated,
competitive, or complementary. Neither is that permission, once
granted, transferable.

Many companies that offer electronic mail advertising services do not
build their lists via accepted opt-in methods.  Instead, they build
their lists by collecting email addresses from 'public' locations,
such as web sites, newsgroups, bulletin boards, and chat rooms. You
should regard any claims of "100% opt-in" with the same skepticism as
you would any deal that seems 'too good to be true'.  A list built via
accepted opt-in methods is a valuable asset - it represents a very
real potential market.  Is this something that is worth only $1 per
million addresses?  Or even $1 per thousand addresses?

Many - perhaps most - electronic mail advertising services at this
point in time know that unsolicited electronic mail advertising is
unwelcome to the vast majority of recipients.  Many Internet Service
Providers also prohibit the use of their facilities for unsolicited
electronic mail advertising, and take firm action against customers
that violate these prohibitions, including termination of service and
assessment of monetary penalties.  For these reasons, among others,
the vast majority of unsolicited advertisements are sent through
unsecured systems not belonging to the service or the service's
Internet Service Provider, and are sent with false address
information.  These are now considered hallmarks not only of
unsolicited electronic mail advertising, but also of *unethical*
electronic mail advertising.  The problem is perceived as being
serious enough that several states (and some foreign countries) have
legislated against unsolicited electronic mail, and similar action is
being contemplated in other jurisdictions, including at the Federal
level in the United States.

Some marketers will attempt to reassure you on the basis of 'free
speech' claims; you should be aware that these claims apply only to
government actions; a private individual or organization is free to
set restrictions on how its facilities may be used, and what sort of
speech is permitted or prohibited; this falls under contract law.

You may also hear claims of legitimacy on the basis of "Bill S.1618",
"Section 301", or "Bill H.R.3113" or some other alleged legislative
basis.  None of the bills so cited have been passed by _both_ houses
of Congress, nor signed by the President, and thus have no legal force
whatsoever.  Moreover, it can generally be shown that even if the
bills _did_ have legal force, the marketing service would be in
violation of various provisions of the bill.

Many electronic mail users are taking what has become known as the
"Boulder Pledge". Someone who has taken the Boulder Pledge has
committed to _never_ purchasing any product or service that is
advertised via unsolicited electronic mail. By sending these people
your ads, you are guaranteeing that they will _never_ become your
customer - quite the opposite effect from what you intend.  Some
people, in addition to taking the Boulder Pledge, will also actively
work to convince friends and acquaintances to never purchase from a
company that advertises via unsolicited electronic mail, whether the
friend has received your ad or not, thus losing _multiple_ customers
from the single copy of the advertisement.

There are many resources that discuss issues associated with
unsolicited electronic mail, including explanations of the _true_
cost, descriptions of good mailing-list-management practices, and why
"opt-out" - requiring the recipient to request removal from your list
- is an unacceptable practice.  Some good places to start are CAUCE,
the Committee Against Unsolicited E-Mail, http://www.cauce.org, and
MAPS, the Mail Abuse Prevention System, http://www.mail-abuse.org.
Additional information, and a forum where you can ask specific
questions and get useful answers, can be found at SpamCop,
http://spamcop.net.

= - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - =

Reminder: I'd like a good, strong analysis and discussion, with the
idea of improving the entire presentation.  The primary intent is to
be able to use this as either a script or as "speaker's notes" when
calling a possibly-clue-impaired spammer, although I wouldn't be
averse to putting it up on a website.

Some thoughts that I had, but couldn't figure out how to incorporate
into the above document, or wasn't sure it would be a good idea to:

(1) The text of the Boulder Pledge, or a pointer to a URL (and if so,
what URL?).

(2) Are there other references that should be mentioned?  Should I be
pointing them to specific pages on the CAUCE, MAPS, or SpamCop sites,
and if so, which ones?

(3) Should I discuss the issue of cost-shifting, or just include a URL
(and if the latter, which one?) pointing to the discussion?

(4) Same question as above, but 'trespassing' and 'theft by
conversion'?

(5) Should I mention newsgroups, either at SpamCop or NANAE?
-- 
Eönwë
(SpamCop subscriber, not staff/admin)