Was going to say there’s a good reason lots of people use services like mailchimp now. You’re not sensibly managing it yourself with the current (very sensible) regulations in the US / EU, nor do you want to be sending from your own domain en masse.
Mailchimp and other legitimate services (other than salesforce, which is best just blocked) don't permit spam, whereas gmail and outlook don't give a fuck unless the spammer gets a large amount of abuse reports.
Certainly mailchimp and the like make things simpler, but the price can be quite high.
I don't think your definition of spam matches the one that I understand it to mean. Spam is random email from someone you have not had contact with before firing messages to every address they can find anywhere on the web, the dark web, etc. Or if you ask not to be added to a mailing list and are added anyway. They often use fraudulent tricks to try to get the email through filters, such as fake from addresses.
Spam is not email from legitimate companies with valid contact details that have an opt out that you forgot to click when you signed up with them. That's legitimate marketing emails. You might argue they also shouldn't exist, but they are a different category.
I get plenty of the second from mailchimp (it's what they do), almost none of the first. Marking the second kind as spam, rather than clicking the unsubscribe link is dangerous because it teaches your anti-spam filter to reject messages from legitimate companies. You might find that if they need to contact you for a genuine reason e.g. a reciept for a future transaction, the message is blocked.
> I don't think your definition of spam matches the one that I understand it to mean. Spam is random email from someone you have not had contact with before firing messages to every address they can find anywhere on the web, the dark web, etc. Or if you ask not to be added to a mailing list and are added anyway. They often use fraudulent tricks to try to get the email through filters, such as fake from addresses.
I would disagree with that definition, and wikipedia and multiple dictionaries appear to agree with me; it doesn't matter how many dark patterns the company uses or whether they (claim to) let you opt out after the fact, if the message is unwelcome, it's spam.
> unsolicited usually commercial messages (such as emails, text messages, or Internet postings) sent to a large number of recipients or posted in a large number of places
* Spam is not email from legitimate companies with valid contact details that have an opt out that you forgot to click when you signed up with them. That's legitimate marketing emails. You might argue they also shouldn't exist, but they are a different category.*
No, they’re all spam. It’s just that some spam is significantly worse than others.
Edit:
this just reminded me of an interaction with a customer when I worked at a dialup ISP over 20 years ago. We would routinely get abuse reports about spam coming from our network that would turn out to be a family computer with a virus. We would disable their account until we got ahold of them, and then help them run antivirus or redirect them to a local shop to fix it.
But this one time my boss is like “Hey you wanna pretend you're the email manager? We have an actual spammer sending ads for a local business through our smtp servers”. We were all laughing at the audacity of it, they were sending thousands of the same message out, I think it was for a tackle shop.
When I called the guy to let him know why we disabled his account he immediately got angry at me, I vividly remember him saying “It’s not spam, it’s for a business!!” I explained to him that it doesn’t matter, it’s just as bad, and could get the whole company blacklisted from sending emails. Turns out his friend owned the business, and convinced him to install something that sent emails through outlook express.
The reason I got that duty is because I had no problem being confrontational back then. I remember telling him that I think he should be fined, and permanently banned from the internet. But that we’ll only let him back on if he uninstalls the thing.
He called back indignantly asking why we were allowing some other spam. I had to explain that it was from another network, and we’re trying to stop it, and that if every ISP were like us then it would barely be a problem.
I wonder if that business spams through google now.
> I don't think your definition of spam matches the one that I understand it to mean. Spam is random email from someone you have not had contact with before firing messages to every address they can find anywhere on the web, the dark web, etc. Or if you ask not to be added to a mailing list and are added anyway.
I don't get _only_ this from Mailchimp, but I definitely get quite a bit of this from Mailchimp, Sendgrid, and others. I've marked it spam, reported it to them (no response), and continued to receive the emails.
I can be kind of scatter brained and generally give the benefit of the doubt, but sometimes it's pretty clear that, e.g., I most definitely did not sign up with some accountant in a different country, in a place I've never been to, to receive reminders of tax deadlines that don't apply to me and offers of accounting services I can't use. Or if I somehow did, the signup was deceptive enough that they never received meaningful consent and I'd call it spam anyway.
(And the email they're sending this to is not some easily confused gmail address or a fat finger--it's my own name at my own domain.)
Having valid contact details or an opt out on their sign up form isn't relevant given I never signed up. It's _unsolicited_, _bulk_ email. It's spam.
I disagree, I get plenty of spam from Mailchimp. Spammers seem to be able to add email addresses to Mailchimp without verification, and they just keep making new accounts/"campaigns" to re-add my email addresses.
Legitimate companies like to not provide the legally-required opt-in flow and assume consent without ever enabling or disabling a consent checkbox. That is spam too.
It's on Mailchimp to not take business from companies that abuse their system. If they get flagged as spam and their other customers have delivery issues because of that, I see that as a feature, not a bug.
> Spam is not email from legitimate companies with valid contact details that have an opt out that you forgot to click when you signed up with them. That's legitimate marketing emails. You might argue they also shouldn't exist, but they are a different category.
Yes it is. Using a dark pattern to trick me into signing up doesn't make it not spam. It's still spam.
I get plenty of Mailchimp spam from people who have bought email lists and added me to their newsletter. It’s against their ToS, and I always indicate that I did not sign up for the list when I unsubscribe. Maybe it does something.
> Spam is random email from someone you have not had contact with before firing messages to every address they can find anywhere on the web, the dark web, etc.
> Or if you ask not to be added to a mailing list and are added anyway.*
> Spam is not email from legitimate companies with valid contact details that have an opt out that you forgot to click when you signed up with them.
There's a HUGE grey area between the random unsolicited emails for scams and legitimate business partners where I forgot to check the opt out. I get almost none of the first (spam filters are pretty good at keeping Nigerian princes from getting help to access their money), and also almost none of the last (because I'm hypervigilant about opting out of email and cookies and all that trash), so all the spam I get is from "asked not to be added but added anyways".
Most of those are coming from Mailchimp and similar services. I'm sure that if I could take the senders to court and disentangle their web of parent companies that had my email in the web form for 10 seconds before I opted out and they sold it to each of their 20 daughter companies and partner organizations, and then I received the first "legitimate marketing email" (LOL! LMFAO!) and unsubscribed from that (which will take effect in 20 business days) so now I'm only subscribed to 19 new mailing lists from that company and also the dozen other organizations they're a part of, until they pivot to a new marketing agency which - oopsie! - forgot about my opt-out request.
That's Mailchimp's business model and the way that the entire "legitimate marketing" economy works, but I still consider it spam.
Yes, I used to agree with that, but have since given in and accepted that most companies (except mine and a handful of others) will spam all customers who buy a product without asking them first.
It's a little irritating, although I reserve full enmity for the spammers who I've never interacted with ever.
> Marketing is only spam when it isn't previous customers, or people who have specifically opted in.
Yes, this excludes any people, customers or otherwise, who did not knowingly and willingly opt-in to specifically receive marketing emails / promotional emails / any other unnecessary emails.
A good heuristic is: if somebody receives an email from you that they do not want, there's a good chance you're spamming them: maybe by calling a marketing email, an "update" instead; maybe because you didn't make it abundantly clear to them when they opted-in that they would receive emails of that type.
I think thats a really wrong definition of spam. Spam is untargeted junk from people you don't know, who are probably hiding there real identity using fake email headers etc. If it's a legit company with legit unsubscribe options, it's not spam.
It worries me a lot that people clicking "mark as spam" on messages from legit companies because they subscribed to the newsletter will mean that my messages with important information (order confirmations, e-tickets etc.) will get blocked.
That's a spammer's definition. Everyone else's definition is that spam is unsolicited e-mail. Which covers most marketing e-mail, and not just the cold messages, but especially marketing e-mail from vendors you had interacted with in some way in the past.
> It worries me a lot that people clicking "mark as spam" on messages from legit companies because they subscribed to the newsletter will mean that my messages with important information (order confirmations, e-tickets etc.) will get blocked.
They probably didn't subscribe to the newsletter, they were subscribed, or tricked into subscribing. Either way, it's spam, and legitimate companies do not mix transactional e-mail ("order confirmations, e-tickets, etc.") with marketing e-mail.
FWIW, I'm one of such people clicking "mark as spam" on marketing e-mail, and I do it intentionally.
> It worries me a lot that people clicking "mark as spam" on messages from legit companies because they subscribed to the newsletter will mean that my messages with important information (order confirmations, e-tickets etc.) will get blocked.
Don't send spam and I won't mark it as spam. I didn't sign up for your newsletter, don't send it to me. Creating an account or placing an order does not mean I agree to your spam.
No, it's valid for me, and I just verified. In spam filter for past month: 0 mailchimp. In valid emails: 6 emails from a service that I signed up for via mailchimp.
Checking my received emails for mailchimp I see a whole bunch of legitimate emails, including for flightschedulepro which uses it. I also see replies to my abuse reports to mailchimp saying the problems have been addressed.
I would have, and I work in tech. I'd guess that most people who use iOS have zero idea of what Android can and can't do, because they never use it and probably never will so what's the point of trying to find out.
Seconded. I never knew Android had this—but then again I couldn't care less about what Android can do. There is so much stuff fundamentally off-putting for me about the entire Google ecosystem that I'd never consider switching anyway.
The text from images feature launched as a Pixel 2 series-only feature.
There's a lot clearer message to consumers on iPhone, since so many features are available on "every phone made in the last five years, once you update the software."
On Android, that feature might be bound to an OS version, or might be rolled out in a Play Store update, it might be specific to just Google or Samsung, or even just to one of their phones. There's much less word of mouth "have you tried this new thing?"
I always hate having my headphones on ANC on the street. It makes me feel really exposed and disconnected. I tend to use transparency when out and about.
This is always an odd one, as it’s the people who look like they just found a bike in a skip and decided to ride around here that cycle on the pavements.
In the roads near my office (central London), which are seldom used by cars, several pedestrians at a time very often walk down the road or diagonally cross the road head in phone. You can get very close and the still don’t notice (the slower you are, the quieter you become so even less likely to hear you).
I’m not sure arguing against a bell is helpful - people need to look on any road, especially with the advent of quiet electric cars.
Sure is helpful, because it goes like this: pedestrians first -> then cyclists -> then motorists.
You may notice that in this worldview (one which I find very hard to argue against) cyclists should give priority to pedestrians, no questions asked. I don't care about fancy bells or whatever, no-one takes those into consideration even when we (us, pedestrians, that is) can hear them because, and I repeat, cyclists are not as important as pedestrians are.
Where I live, generally if you're allowed to use a road or a lane, you have equal rights to others using it. On a road, cyclists have equal rights to motorists; on shared lanes, pedestrians don't have special rights and are expected to walk near the edge.
Your worldview (mostly) applies to pedestrian crossings but that's the extent of it.
I think that’s probably quite a selfish world view (and also quite arrogant to claim your own view is hard to argue against - of course you would find it hard to argue against, that is moot…)
When there is infrastructure to support all 3 kinds of users, it seems a lot more equitable for everyone to use the space cooperatively.
I absolutely agree one should give way to more vulnerable road users, but that all 3 can have better outcomes (safety, speed of journey, efficiency etc) it all use it cooperatively and conscientiously.
To labour the point, on shared cycle and pedestrian paths with a line down the middle, does a bell ring combined with slowing down to a safe speed not seem like an appropriate warning?
You may not care about fancy bells but you will care about loud honking close to your ears in my very recent experience from the streets of Shanghai. You don't have absolute priority just because you are a pedestrian.
> Why can't the cyclists slow down when they see that there's a human obstacle in front of them?
Because if the space is limited and they actually want to get somewhere, they just don't have time for that? And slowing down often means stopping and causing a traffic jam.
Note that I mostly agree with what you wrote (and I give priority to pedestrians when I'm riding my bike) but there are different situations that have to be taken into account.
There is a number of differences between a car and a bike, including how pedestrians react to them. Also you probably (hopefully) don't drive your car on narrow sidewalks which in some cases is unavoidable for bikes in cities.
reply