European Parliament proposes tough behavioural ad rules

[Roland Perry]

In article <4CDE759A.8040303 at ernest.net>, Nicholas Bohm 
<nbohm at ernest.net> writes
>>         require advertisements sent by e-mail to contain an automatic
>>         link enabling the recipient to refuse all further advertising
>>
>> Again, isn't this already the law (if the sending of the email was legal
>> in the first place)?
>
>I didn't know it was the law (is it?),

See Joel's posting.

> but just as one shouldn't reply to spam because it encourages the 
>sender, so - a fortiori - one shouldn't visit the spammer's webpage, 
>which could do even more harm.

The link could just as easily be a mailto:

And common sense must prevail - if it's the sort of spam which comes 
from clueless marketers in a real business, then "unsubscribing" might 
actually work. But the recipient should beware of replying to the 
remaining 'spam'.

It's also one of those situations where the 'spammers' only have to be 
"lucky once", and your name goes on the lists, which are circulated an 
amplified. The fact you received one 'spam' means you may already be on 
one of the lists, so the damage is already done.
-- 
Roland Perry