What do you think about these hot button issues?

bullhornIt’s been one of those weeks where blogging is a challenge. Not because I don’t have much to say, but because I don’t have much constructive to say. Rants can be entertaining, even to write. But they’re not very helpful in terms of what do we need to change and how do we move forward.
A few different things I read or saw brought out the rants this week. Some of these are issues I don’t have answers to, and some of them are issues where I just disagree with folks, but have nothing more useful to say than, “You’re wrong.” I don’t even always have an answer to why they’re wrong, they’re just wrong.
I thought today I’d bring up the issues that made me so ranty and list the two different points of views about them and see what readers think about them. (Those of you who follow me on Facebook probably know which ones my positions are, but I’m going to try and be neutral about my specific positions.)

CASL

Position A: CASL is bad law because it imposes regulations on business.

Position B: CASL is a consumer protection law and a response to business practices that hurt consumers.

Google Snooze

Position A: Google snooze is good for marketers because it lets recipients put mail they want aside until they can take action on it.

Position B: Google snooze is bad for marketers because it makes it easier for recipients to ignore mail.

User Education

Position A: We can fix phishing through user education.

Position B: User education hasn’t worked so far, what makes you think it will work in the future?

ISP Practices

Position A: ISPs are too big because they don’t reply individually to every abuse complaint.

Position B: Individual abuse complaints are insignificant when compared to FBL emails.

The Death of Email

Position A: Email is dead.

Position B: Email is not dead.

Email as Identity

Position A: Email addresses are too fluid and should not be used as identity keys for online services.

Position B: Email addresses are useful identifiers and better than usernames at every different online service.

The Definition of Spam

Position A: Spam is unsolicited bulk email.

Position B: Spam is unsolicited broadcast email.

Position C: Spam is unsolicited commercial email.

Position D: Spam is viagra and other bad mail.

Position E: Spam is any mail that’s not confirmed opt-in.

Position F: Spam is mail I don’t like.

Position G: Spam is mail someone else doesn’t like.

Position S: Spam is the same thing many times.

Position P: Spam is the same thing many times.

Position A: Spam is the same thing many times.

Position M: Spam is the same thing many times.

Position H: It’s Friday. Let’s all go have a drink.

Just some of the things that popped up on my radar and caused some strong responses this week. What are your thoughts and your feelings on the different issues? Do you have a different opinion? What are your hot button issues this week? This month?

Related Posts

4 things the new outlook ads tell us about email

Microsoft has a new TV ad showing how trivial it is to remove unwanted email from the inbox. Various busy people use the “sweep” and “delete” functions to clean up mail. The commercial even have a segment counting up the hundreds of emails deleted.
This tells me a few things.Images of all my different filters

Read More

Gmail having issues

As of 7/22/15, 1:17 PM, Google reports the issue is resolved.
 
Over on the mailop list multiple people are reporting delivery problems to Gmail.
The Google status page confirms this:

Read More

When spam filters fail

Spam filters aren’t perfect. They sometimes catch mail they shouldn’t, although it happens less than some people think. They sometimes fail to catch mail they should.
One of the reason filters fail to catch mail they should is because some spammers invest a lot of time and energy in figuring out how to get past the filters. This is nothing new, 8 or 9 years ago I was in negotiations with a potential client. They told me they had people who started working at 5pm eastern. Their entire job was to craft mail that would get through Hotmail’s filters that day. As soon as they found a particular message that made it to the inbox, they’d blast to their list until the filters caught up. When the filters caught up, they’d start testing again. This went on all night or until the full list was sent.
Since then I’ve heard of a lot of other filter bypass techniques. Some spammers set up thousands of probe accounts at ISPs and would go through and “not spam” their mail to fool the filters (ISPs adapted). Some spammers set up thousands of IPs and rotate through them (ISPs adapted). Some spammers register new domains for every send (ISPs adapted). Some spammers used botnets (ISPs adapted)
I’m sure, even now, there are spammers who are creating new techniques to get through filters. And the ISPs will adapt.

Read More