|ACLU newsletter considered SPAM|
I installed Mail::SpamAssassin recently. Today it considered the ACLU newsletter spam. The reasons given were:
- From: does not include a real name
- Tells you to 'take action now!'
- Asks you to click below
- Act Now! Don't Hesitate!
All that just because ACLU wants us to support their fight against Bush´s government sponsored religion. ;)
I thought you were German? What use is the ACLU newseletter to someone who doesn't have congresspeople to call? ;)
Any idea whether it makes a difference if you subscribe to their HTML or text-only version? *I* get practically no spam even without filters in place, but my 14-year-old sister really thinks I should put a spam filter on the family server. Enough of us subscribe to the ACLU newsletter that it'd be a real pain to have the thing getting rejected.
I subscribed to the ASCII version. I´ve put the ACLU on my whitelist now so it will get through allright.
We have congresspeople, too you know ;).
Comparative studies in German, English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Ireland, and US Constitutional law is sort of a hobby of mine ;). ACLU cases are hard cases and while they may make bad law, they are certainly very interesting. They are often the cases where it comes to the core of things and I like ACLU´s way of insisting that even in those hard cases the law is not to be bend to suit the majorities´ point of views or interests.
Of course in their quest for advancing freedom they often do choose priciples that are questionable like privacy but are recognized by the courts while they ought to try to achieve the same aims by employing different arguments. But then they work in the real world not academia.
|We have congresspeople, too you know |
I know your government is an elected representative democracy, anyway. I wouldn't have known what the apropriate term for a representative in your national legislative assembly is without looking it up, though. Or even whether it's a unicameral or bicameral assembly.
|while they ought to try to achieve the same aims by employing different arguments. |
Hmm... I'd be interested in hearing more, but that should probably happen off this board. But there's always stickymail. (For that matter, I'm sure you can find my primary e-mail address in 3 clicks.)
One of my clients is having lots of trouble with bounced newsletters and other opt-in messages, and mostly because of the increased use of spam filters. Their bounce rates are going as high as 14% per mailing.
The big deal for them is the writing style, which tends to be a bit "DON'T MISS THIS OPPORTUNITY!" if you know what I mean. I've never liked the style, particularly for their market, but that is their style.
The spam problem is costing many businesses a serious buck - not just the added difficulties in email marketing but the missed and delayed communications caused by corporate anti-spam measures.
When someone tells me that they didn't get my email these days, I ask them if they have a "spam" box to look into -- that's almost a reflex by now. You never know what kind of triggers are involved in labeling a message as spam.
Spam filters don't care if it is really spam or not. Most have a number system that they use to judge if you are spam. Certain elements get certain values and if the total value equals over a certain "qualifying" amount, the email is axed as spam. Phrases like "Unsubscribe", "Sale", "Visit our website", "remove" and plenty of other words commonly found in legitamite permission newsletter/marketing emails carry rather high values. Even the color codes found in the email HTML can help to get it blacklisted.
That's the filter that kills me - by giving your subscribers legitimate options to stop recieving mailings, you may prevent them from ever receiving a mailing in the first place.
But the porn just keeps pouring through...
hannamyluv [webmasterworld.com] wrote at 08:08 AM on Feb. 12, 2003 in message #6 [webmasterworld.com]
|Spam filters don't care if it is really spam or not. |
Well, how could they, since that is open to interpretation anyway. If even humans are unsure how could a bunch of stupid rules determine that. BTW that´s one good argument against H.L.A. Heart´s assumption that law is nothing but applying rules.