European Parliament proposes tough behavioural ad rules
lists at internetpolicyagency.com
Sat Nov 13 14:24:46 GMT 2010
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
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.
More information about the ukcrypto