Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  whit, 15 Mar 2002 @ 3:20pm

  
  

  Mis-statement or serious legal loophole?

  From the article, a quote from Etracks' lawyer: "I suspect what's happened here is that Morrison & Foerster employees have either at work or at home gotten on to some of these Web sites and registered there," Wilson said. "When and if they did that they created a business relationship with our clients and authorized the sending of e-mail to that domain."

  I've got to find out whether this is really Etracks' policy -- I can't belive that any relatively mainstream marketing company (even a gray-market email marketing company) would propose that that a "registration" by a single user would create a business relationship with every single user at that domain. Sure, they'll spam any address they can get, but most of these companies just apologize and claim some sort of not-to-be-repeated error when caught out this badly.

  ...that's just utterly insane...one AOL user neglects to un-check a "yes, please sell my email address to anyone who will buy it" box, therefore your company has established a business relationship with any sucker who gets an @aol.com email address?

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Clarence Darrow, 16 Mar 2002 @ 7:49am

  
  

  The wisdom of

  I have to question the wisdom of spamming a whole domain full of lawyers and then having the guts to say they had a right to do it. It is like when some skell trys to holdup the bar where the off duty cops hang out.
  
  However, I do have to thank Etracks for their bonehead move, it may result in stronger antispam laws.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  David, 16 Mar 2002 @ 9:34am

  
  

  Also interesting

  Also interesting to note that Etracks has Conde Nast and Office Depot as clients. Just knowing that these two companies employ spamming as an advertising tactic makes me want to avoid any business with them, even if I've never actually gotten spam from either of them before.
  

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]