And the verdict is….
Spamhaus in a landslide. The 7th Circuit has issued its opinion in e360 Insight’s case against the Spamhaus Project. E360 Insight, Inc. v. Spamhaus Project, 658 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 2011). The award against Spamhaus was reduced to $3. That would be a dollar apiece for defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and actual damages. e360
Why an opt-out opt-in doesn’t really work
I recently heard from some friends about Penton Media sending an email asking people to subscribe to third-party email. They didn’t like being required to opt-out to avoid getting an email that wasn’t requested in the first place, even if there had been a warning given that the email was coming. Spamhaus agreed with those
Oral arguments in e360 v. Spamhaus
There were oral arguments yesterday in David Linhardt’s longshot of a lawsuit against Spamhaus. You can listen to the MP3 here. My impressions are that e360 is likely toast. In fact, I think that there is some chance, after hearing Judge Pozner refer to the damages case put on by e360 and its attorneys as “grotesque,”
Canada’s anti-spam law: Does it apply to me?
Much time and space has been dedicated to examining Canada’s new anti-spam law. And we have been watching it, too. For a general overview of the law, I would suggest reading Al Iverson’s ExactTarget blog post about it. Today, though, let us consider a burning question in the eyes of marketers: “Does this law apply to
Partial bulking & other warning shots
This morning, I got a question about some, but not all, of a mailing going into the bulk folder at a large ISP. “What does it mean when they do that? What should we do?” Most think sending mail to the bulk folder is an “all or nothing” proposition. They know there is a problem
Number 11 is a nice place to be
Sometimes we can get too close to something. So close, in fact, that we take comments the wrong way so that they become insults that they were never intended to be. A couple of years ago, a member of the postmaster staff at a large, North American ISP said to a group of ESP people:
An average email user responds
As I mentioned in my last post, I asked my dad to have a look at Gretchen Scheiman’s MediaPost Email Insider post. Gretchen Scheiman, Does Permission Need To Be Explicit?, MediaPost Email Insider (2010), https://web.archive.org/web/20210227121402/http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/139590/ (last visited May 31, 2024). My dad is a baby boomer and, I think, is a relatively normal email user.
Bigger Is Not Always Better
Delivery professionals have told clients for years that a bigger list is not always better. We have been telling people that mailing people for the sake of mailing people is not a winning strategy. We have advocated mailing to engaged subscribers while letting the deadwood disappear. For years, we have suffered (not so) silently as
Somebody hasn’t read all of the CAN-SPAM Act
Today’s big news appears to be a couple of lawsuits filed by Holomaxx Technologies. One was filed against Yahoo and Cisco, and the other against Microsoft and Return Path. In both, Holomaxx makes some statements that indicate it doesn’t have a firm grasp of the CAN-SPAM Act. Here’s a snippet: While it may be true