Today, as I write this, is the fifth day of Christmas. E-mail has slacked off a bit as we go through this holiday period between Christmas Day and the start of the new year. Nevertheless, since I returned home from visiting with relatives, the number of e-mail messages I have deleted with no interest in reading actually numbers in the thousands. So, believe me when I say I know what it is to have a mailbox full of junk.
However, as I mentioned in my first post on this subject, just because I am not interested in reading the e-mail does not qualify it as "spam". The truth is that the senders of most of those e-mails I received actually had my permission to send them to me. Some of the ways they got that permission was covered in my second post on this issue.
Even though I am getting hundreds of e-mails for which I have no interest every single day, my e-mail is actually under control. How? I am receiving those bulk mailings in designated junk mailboxes.
Here's what I mean. I set up a few e-mail accounts that I use strictly for those things that I know are going to trigger an avalanche of junk mail. There are several free accounts available on the internet. Yahoo offers free accounts. Google offers gmail accounts at no charge. Hotmail still has free accounts, but many companies now refuse to accept Hotmail addresses. Whenever I need to fill out a form that requires an e-mail address and I would rather not give my main account, I just use one of my dummy e-mail addresses.
I don't worry about trying to get removed from all those lists. Normally I just do a quick scan of the mailbox to see if there is anything I actually want. Then, I delete everything else in mass without even opening it. It takes just a few seconds of my time and even provides a perverse sense of satisfaction.
That still leaves the matter of what to do about the unwanted e-mails you are already getting in your primary e-mail account. There are right and wrong ways to get off those lists. Doing it correctly remains the subject for yet another post on the spam wars.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
December 29, 2007
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Wrong again, George!
George W. Bush has it wrong AGAIN! Just a few moments ago I learned that Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan was assassinated by a man who shot her and then killed himself along with several others by blowing himself up. I am saddened by this development.
The Associated Press reports George Bush as saying, "The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan's democracy." I agree with the condemnation of the act. I agree with the characterization of the person as a murderous extremist. I agree that his probable motivation was "to undermine Pakistan's democracy." However, to call the act "cowardly" shows NO UNDERSTANDING of the term.
How can it be cowardice to willingly die for a cause? That the cause is seriously misguided is beside the point. This murderous person was many vile things, but a coward was not one of them.
This is not the first time George Bush has misspoken regarding cowardice. For days following the heinous attacks on September 11, 2001 he referred to the individuals responsible as cowards. They too willingly gave their lives for an abhorrent cause they believed in. They were evil people who will languish in hell, but they were not cowards.
I was silent then, but this time I will not be. President George Bush is either an outright liar, or he does not know what "cowardice" means. Frankly, I am not sure which idea I find more disturbing.
That's Wade's Two Cents.
Wade Houston
December 27, 2007
The Associated Press reports George Bush as saying, "The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan's democracy." I agree with the condemnation of the act. I agree with the characterization of the person as a murderous extremist. I agree that his probable motivation was "to undermine Pakistan's democracy." However, to call the act "cowardly" shows NO UNDERSTANDING of the term.
How can it be cowardice to willingly die for a cause? That the cause is seriously misguided is beside the point. This murderous person was many vile things, but a coward was not one of them.
This is not the first time George Bush has misspoken regarding cowardice. For days following the heinous attacks on September 11, 2001 he referred to the individuals responsible as cowards. They too willingly gave their lives for an abhorrent cause they believed in. They were evil people who will languish in hell, but they were not cowards.
I was silent then, but this time I will not be. President George Bush is either an outright liar, or he does not know what "cowardice" means. Frankly, I am not sure which idea I find more disturbing.
That's Wade's Two Cents.
Wade Houston
December 27, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Wade Houston Wishes You a Merry Christmas!
The media is full of stories of the Christmas messages of the different presidential candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire. Their commercials take a break from mudslinging, but then the candidates themselves attack each other's commercials. I hope you are enjoying the show.
Meanwhile, I am taking some time with family and loved ones to commemorate the seasonal observance of Jesus Christ's birth. I hope that however you spend these days that close out the year that your days are happy ones. Thank you for your readership.
Merry Christmas!
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
December 23, 2007
Meanwhile, I am taking some time with family and loved ones to commemorate the seasonal observance of Jesus Christ's birth. I hope that however you spend these days that close out the year that your days are happy ones. Thank you for your readership.
Merry Christmas!
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
December 23, 2007
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Unwanted E-mail Doesn't Deserve Your Permission
In my previous posting on the subject of unwanted e-mail, I mentioned that not all the e-mail you don't want that is cluttering your mailbox is spam. That is because you have actually given your permission for a lot of it. "How?" you may ask. That is the subject of this entry.
From the perspective of advertisers, your e-mail address has value. Your e-mail address with permission to send you e-mail is even more valuable. Merchants are constantly looking for ways to procure both your e-mail address and your permission to send messages there. Getting your permission is most of the battle in bringing their marketing into conformity with anti-spam laws. At least, this is true for those actually trying to comply.
If you don't want to give advertisers permission to e-mail you, don't! That's easy to say but harder to stick to. Here are some of the reasons.
1) Nearly every time you register a product or service warranty online, there is a mandatory request for a valid e-mail address. Somewhere in the registration will be a check box section (often pre-checked) saying something like, "Keep me informed regarding product updates." That sounds harmless enough. You certainly want to hear about any product recalls. But, product updates may include announcements about companion products such as a cup holder to fit on the handle of that lawnmower you registered. You may think the announcement is junk, but it is technically NOT spam because you did give your permission for it to be sent to you. The only way to avoid giving this permission was to have unchecked that box regarding updates.
2) Many contracts for such things as cell phone service or credit card accounts also ask for your e-mail address. Most of these will include a section offering to send you information from "partner companies" or "select companies." Many times you must take action to opt-out of this information sharing. Doing nothing will imply your permission. You might think you want information from the partner companies, but there is no guarantee that your cell phone company is not partnering with a sports drink producer. "Select" may sound exclusive, but the basis of selection may have been little more than agreeing to pay the fee to rent the list. Nevertheless, by giving your permission in such a general way, you opened the door for these kinds of e-mails.
3) If you have ever completed a survey that included your e-mail address, you have probably given permission for all kinds of mailings. For example, in a list of questions regarding your fashion tastes, favorite colors, political leanings, etc., you may have been asked, "Would you like to know more about making money from home on the internet?" If you answered anything other than "No," you probably gave your permission for that whole category of e-mail. These surveys are typically done by lead list companies who sell your e-mail address along with your response, the time, the date, and even your IP address to multiple marketers who are going to act on your unintentional request. They will be able to provide satisfactory evidence of your request if the matter should ever go to court.
4) Nearly every free online contest requires registration which includes permission to e-mail you advertising. This serves the obvious purpose of paying for the prizes. You accept this consequence instead of shelling out the money for lottery tickets, etc. If you don't recall this provision, check the "Terms and Conditions" that you said you agreed to. They actually expect most people will agree without ever reading them. Again, the time, the date, and the IP address from which you agreed to these terms were recorded in case it should ever be necessary to defend against charges of spamming.
I could go on, but I think you get the picture. The first step in stopping unwanted e-mail is to refuse to give permission for it to be sent to you in the first place. This requires vigilance. Dealing with unwanted e-mailings you already gave your permission for is a subject for a future post.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
December 18, 2007
See also Spam Wars
From the perspective of advertisers, your e-mail address has value. Your e-mail address with permission to send you e-mail is even more valuable. Merchants are constantly looking for ways to procure both your e-mail address and your permission to send messages there. Getting your permission is most of the battle in bringing their marketing into conformity with anti-spam laws. At least, this is true for those actually trying to comply.
If you don't want to give advertisers permission to e-mail you, don't! That's easy to say but harder to stick to. Here are some of the reasons.
1) Nearly every time you register a product or service warranty online, there is a mandatory request for a valid e-mail address. Somewhere in the registration will be a check box section (often pre-checked) saying something like, "Keep me informed regarding product updates." That sounds harmless enough. You certainly want to hear about any product recalls. But, product updates may include announcements about companion products such as a cup holder to fit on the handle of that lawnmower you registered. You may think the announcement is junk, but it is technically NOT spam because you did give your permission for it to be sent to you. The only way to avoid giving this permission was to have unchecked that box regarding updates.
2) Many contracts for such things as cell phone service or credit card accounts also ask for your e-mail address. Most of these will include a section offering to send you information from "partner companies" or "select companies." Many times you must take action to opt-out of this information sharing. Doing nothing will imply your permission. You might think you want information from the partner companies, but there is no guarantee that your cell phone company is not partnering with a sports drink producer. "Select" may sound exclusive, but the basis of selection may have been little more than agreeing to pay the fee to rent the list. Nevertheless, by giving your permission in such a general way, you opened the door for these kinds of e-mails.
3) If you have ever completed a survey that included your e-mail address, you have probably given permission for all kinds of mailings. For example, in a list of questions regarding your fashion tastes, favorite colors, political leanings, etc., you may have been asked, "Would you like to know more about making money from home on the internet?" If you answered anything other than "No," you probably gave your permission for that whole category of e-mail. These surveys are typically done by lead list companies who sell your e-mail address along with your response, the time, the date, and even your IP address to multiple marketers who are going to act on your unintentional request. They will be able to provide satisfactory evidence of your request if the matter should ever go to court.
4) Nearly every free online contest requires registration which includes permission to e-mail you advertising. This serves the obvious purpose of paying for the prizes. You accept this consequence instead of shelling out the money for lottery tickets, etc. If you don't recall this provision, check the "Terms and Conditions" that you said you agreed to. They actually expect most people will agree without ever reading them. Again, the time, the date, and the IP address from which you agreed to these terms were recorded in case it should ever be necessary to defend against charges of spamming.
I could go on, but I think you get the picture. The first step in stopping unwanted e-mail is to refuse to give permission for it to be sent to you in the first place. This requires vigilance. Dealing with unwanted e-mailings you already gave your permission for is a subject for a future post.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
December 18, 2007
See also Spam Wars
Friday, December 14, 2007
Saying, "No," to the Magic Potion
A hundred years ago, if there had been a way someone could take a substance and improve his ability to play sports, it would have been hailed as a magic potion. It was the stuff of fantasy. Now that it's here, we call it steroids.
Actually, steroids and human growth hormones, are just some of the substances used to enhance physical performance. An athlete is definitely not doing his best if he neglects proper nutrition which includes the best nutritional supplementation. But steroids are considered bad and nutritional supplementation is good. How do we really know where to draw the line?
When is it cheating, and when is it taking proper advantage of the technological and medical advances of our society? We think we know. But do we really?
What about the Paralympics? How much medical technology can be introduced into the games before it becomes cheating? What if certain prosthesis actually make the contestants better than unaided persons with normal limbs? These are issues that will need to be resolved by consensus.
Let us not be too hasty to vilify those who may have chosen poorly. It takes time for society to work out the norms for new technologies and to establish clear definitions of right and wrong. We're still trying to figure out the proper etiquette for using a cell phone.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
December 14, 2007
Actually, steroids and human growth hormones, are just some of the substances used to enhance physical performance. An athlete is definitely not doing his best if he neglects proper nutrition which includes the best nutritional supplementation. But steroids are considered bad and nutritional supplementation is good. How do we really know where to draw the line?
When is it cheating, and when is it taking proper advantage of the technological and medical advances of our society? We think we know. But do we really?
What about the Paralympics? How much medical technology can be introduced into the games before it becomes cheating? What if certain prosthesis actually make the contestants better than unaided persons with normal limbs? These are issues that will need to be resolved by consensus.
Let us not be too hasty to vilify those who may have chosen poorly. It takes time for society to work out the norms for new technologies and to establish clear definitions of right and wrong. We're still trying to figure out the proper etiquette for using a cell phone.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
December 14, 2007
Spam Is Not In The Eyes Of The Receiver
As an internet blogger, I am put in contact with a lot of persons I might otherwise never know. Some of these are people who make their entire living on the internet. They have opened my eyes to some important points regarding the matter of bulk e-mail. I thought I would pass along those insights.
I am keenly aware of what it is like to receive massive amounts of e-mail concerning products or services in which I have absolutely no interest. I actually receive hundreds of such offers, not just every month, not just every week, but every single day. In fact, I receive way more bulk commercial e-mails than the average Joe. I am definitely anti-spam. However, much of the unwanted e-mail I receive is technically not spam.
You see, just not being interested in something you receive does not make it spam. Just because a particular e-mail is sent in bulk to a huge list does not make it spam. It may rub against the grain, but just because you consider a particular piece of e-mail to be junk or e-mail clutter does not make it spam. Why is that?
When our legislators started trying to get a handle on the growing problem of unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE), they found it necessary to define "spam." You cannot pass reasonable laws against something unless you can define what that something is. It soon became clear that no definition was going to satisfy everyone. Furthermore, there were issues regarding free speech and restraint of trade that were going to make violations hard to prosecute.
Here are some hard facts:
1) Not all bulk e-mail is spam. A number of people intentionally subscribe to mailing lists which may be quite large. Both the senders and the receivers have the right to communicate in this fashion.
2) Not all commercial e-mail is unsolicited. People ask for product and/or service information all the time. The providers of that information have a right to respond to these requests.
3) If you subscribe to or request information and then later forget or change your mind, the sender has no way of knowing until you communicate this change. Your forgetting or changing your mind does not make the e-mail you received spam.
4) Many people unintentionally request information while surfing the internet. Sometimes they are completing surveys or entering contests. They may not notice their request or may fail to recognize that is what they are doing. Their ignorance does not justify accusing the one who honors their request of spamming.
People often get angry with themselves for getting on this or that list. However, instead of properly requesting removal, they will often hit the "report spam" link instead. This bogs down the system. A bonifide investigation will frequently verify that the recipient did indeed request or give permission for the information despite all protestations to the contrary. These false spam reports make it more difficult to isolate the real spammers because false reports waste the time and energy of the investigators.
I'll have more to say about the spam wars in future posts.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
December, 14, 2007
Previous post
I am keenly aware of what it is like to receive massive amounts of e-mail concerning products or services in which I have absolutely no interest. I actually receive hundreds of such offers, not just every month, not just every week, but every single day. In fact, I receive way more bulk commercial e-mails than the average Joe. I am definitely anti-spam. However, much of the unwanted e-mail I receive is technically not spam.
You see, just not being interested in something you receive does not make it spam. Just because a particular e-mail is sent in bulk to a huge list does not make it spam. It may rub against the grain, but just because you consider a particular piece of e-mail to be junk or e-mail clutter does not make it spam. Why is that?
When our legislators started trying to get a handle on the growing problem of unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE), they found it necessary to define "spam." You cannot pass reasonable laws against something unless you can define what that something is. It soon became clear that no definition was going to satisfy everyone. Furthermore, there were issues regarding free speech and restraint of trade that were going to make violations hard to prosecute.
Here are some hard facts:
1) Not all bulk e-mail is spam. A number of people intentionally subscribe to mailing lists which may be quite large. Both the senders and the receivers have the right to communicate in this fashion.
2) Not all commercial e-mail is unsolicited. People ask for product and/or service information all the time. The providers of that information have a right to respond to these requests.
3) If you subscribe to or request information and then later forget or change your mind, the sender has no way of knowing until you communicate this change. Your forgetting or changing your mind does not make the e-mail you received spam.
4) Many people unintentionally request information while surfing the internet. Sometimes they are completing surveys or entering contests. They may not notice their request or may fail to recognize that is what they are doing. Their ignorance does not justify accusing the one who honors their request of spamming.
People often get angry with themselves for getting on this or that list. However, instead of properly requesting removal, they will often hit the "report spam" link instead. This bogs down the system. A bonifide investigation will frequently verify that the recipient did indeed request or give permission for the information despite all protestations to the contrary. These false spam reports make it more difficult to isolate the real spammers because false reports waste the time and energy of the investigators.
I'll have more to say about the spam wars in future posts.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
December, 14, 2007
Previous post
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Happy or Unhappy Holidays
It's that time of year when emotions run high for a lot of people. Some people absolutely love the holiday season. Some people hate it. Many children become almost manic with giddiness. Other people sink into almost chronic depression until the second week in January.
There is a lot I enjoy about this festive season. The biggest downer for me is hanging around depressed people. Ironically, I have consistently found that these people who are habitually depressed during this time of year have higher (not lower) expectations for the season. I suspect that goes to the root of their depression. They set themselves up for disappointment with unrealistic expectations.
Several years ago, I was trapped in a similar cycle of disappointment. But someone encouraged me to give up all my expectations for the season and just enjoy what came. It made a world of difference! I was able to embrace what was without constantly reminding myself with how it fell short of what I might have thought should be.
I hear people lamenting their financial woes and saying things like, "We're not going to have much of a Christmas this year." I find myself thinking how awful that is. Not that their financial resources are so limited but that they have so lost sight of the true meaning of the holiday. True Christmas is not about material wealth. Maybe not having all the commercial trappings is the best thing they could experience for the season. But, they will never realize the blessing until they embrace it.
Not every Christmas season is going to be "the most wonderful time of the year," but every Christmas season can be meaningful. Relax. Let go of your expectations. Receive the gift God gives, and you will be blessed, indeed!
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
December 11, 2007
Previous post
There is a lot I enjoy about this festive season. The biggest downer for me is hanging around depressed people. Ironically, I have consistently found that these people who are habitually depressed during this time of year have higher (not lower) expectations for the season. I suspect that goes to the root of their depression. They set themselves up for disappointment with unrealistic expectations.
Several years ago, I was trapped in a similar cycle of disappointment. But someone encouraged me to give up all my expectations for the season and just enjoy what came. It made a world of difference! I was able to embrace what was without constantly reminding myself with how it fell short of what I might have thought should be.
I hear people lamenting their financial woes and saying things like, "We're not going to have much of a Christmas this year." I find myself thinking how awful that is. Not that their financial resources are so limited but that they have so lost sight of the true meaning of the holiday. True Christmas is not about material wealth. Maybe not having all the commercial trappings is the best thing they could experience for the season. But, they will never realize the blessing until they embrace it.
Not every Christmas season is going to be "the most wonderful time of the year," but every Christmas season can be meaningful. Relax. Let go of your expectations. Receive the gift God gives, and you will be blessed, indeed!
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
December 11, 2007
Previous post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)