| Main Subject |
Hubs | Hubbers | Topics | Request |
| #1 in Business | Subscribe Email Print |
|
You are here: Home > Internet and Businesses Online > Spam Blocker > Caught In the Cross-Fire of the Spam War |
|
Main Subject - Caught In the Cross-Fire of the Spam War
LET THERE BE LIGHT: To understand this story, we must return
to the beginning --- September 5th, 2001. One of my associates
had placed a free ad in a newsletter that she had just
subscribed to. For that effort, she was accused of spam! Mind
you the person filing the complaint was not the editor of the
newsletter, but rather a subscriber of the newsletter. The man was frustrated because he was havi According to USFDA, a combination product is one composed of any combination of a drug and device; biological product and device; drug and biological product ng difficulty getting
unsubscribed from the newsletter, so he filed a complaint
against everyone who was listed in the body of the message,
rather than just the list owner. It was his frustration,
anger and ignorance that fueled this nasty little affair. My friend lives in a very small town in Canada that has only one ISP. The Upline Provider for the local ISP was demanding her account to be tur ; or drug, device, and biological product and fixed dose combination would include two or more combinations of drug. Examples of combination products may in ed off permanently because of this accusation
which was later dropped. The local ISP stood their ground on
behalf of their customer --- my friend --- though this action
could have seriously hampered their ability to provide their
customers with Internet access. Even in dropping his claim against my friend, the person who filed the complaint insisted that my friend was somehow still responsible f lude drug-coated devices, drugs packaged with delivery devices in medical kits, and drugs and devices packaged separately but intended to be used together. r his inability to unsubscribe from the newsletter
in question! The person who filed this complaint was using a system designed by programmer Julian Haight to combat spam email called SpamCops.net. INTO THE PIT: In my original copy written September 10th, I had compared the tactics of the few diehard SpamCop anti-spammers to the tactics of a terrorist. In the wake of September 11th, it did not s here is enormous increase in the number of combination products entering the market in the recent years. Combination products have proven advantages but fixe em appropriate to
refer to the SpamCop fanatics as terrorists. However closely
the tactics of intimidation and coercion used by the SpamCop
fanatics coincides with the tactics used by the al-Qaida
terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden, SpamCop does not
resort to murder. Due to SpamCop.net's unwillingness to provide a real person contact for the resolution of complaints, I was forced to turn d dose combinations are still in the process of convincing regulatory authority on their advantages over the single ingredient formulations. Combination pro to their discussion board to find the resolution I was seeking
--- a resolution, which by the way, was never found. My major complaint was that for someone to file against another simply because their email address or website appeared in someone else's ezine was improper. Many members had knee jerk reactions to my questioning their system from within their inner sanctum. Many resorted to name ca ucts have become life saving products for the pharmaceutical companies who doesn’t have many innovative molecules in their product pipeline and have been inc ling and angry retort until a list administrator called them
down. After the list administrator directly addressed their
inappropriate comments, I received three open apologies from
members of the group. PUBLISHERS BEWARE. Over the course of the next few days, I watched their discussions. I was appalled to learn that many of them put email addresses in circulation just so that they can torment o easingly used in the product life cycle management. Even the companies having product patents are trying to extend their product life cycle through the combi hers with spam accusations. As an owner of several discussion lists and newsletters, I now make it a standard policy to bar participation in my groups by someone sporting a SpamCop.net email address. I had tried to observe their group with an open mind, as I too find spam mail to be annoying. I receive nearly 50 pieces a day from four to five people, who send me the same ads day after day. What i nation products and maximize the revenues. But the companies involved in this practice are overlooking that they are burdening the patients both economically really annoying is they send the spam to
my autoresponders with a fake address, so I get another 50
messages a day telling me that I used an invalid email address
in my autoresponder message. All have spidered my website to
get the email addresses. A SPAMCOP SPEAKS. In all fairness, I was leaning towards a semi-favorable opinion of the SpamCop program until "Jerry" lashed out. In his message, and physically. They need to rightly judge the benefits of the combination products and they have to even look at the risks involved when combining the produ Jerry told me things which will just make you
want to explode in frustration. He said of the innocent who get caught in the cross-fire of the spam wars: "They should stay home." He went on to say, "it is far better for thousands of innocents to burn in Hell than one spammer prevail." And, "Truth, Justice, and the American Way - or lack thereof - is irrelevant. Spammers must believe there are no l ts. Some of the combination products were well accepted by physicians while others suffered. Companies involved in development of combination products are fi opholes, no
gray areas, that the righteous will be sacrificed (in vast
numbers if need be) in order to expunge the evildoers." In conclusion, it was stated, "Spam, like the one true faith, is in the eye of the beholder. Again, if it looks like a bird, it might be a duck. Better the condor dies than risk a quack." These of course are just excerpts. If you would care to read his entire message to m ding difficulty in defining their combination products and facing various challenges from selecting a combination to marketing it. Following aspects would a , you may do so at the bottom of this
page: http://shopmystate.com/niba/BillP.html NO SAFE HAVEN: On two occasions, I have found myself squarely in the cross-hairs of the radicals or the angry that wear the shield of SpamCop. I publish articles for free-reprint on the web --- much as this article has come to you today. The SpamCop's suggested that I was hiding behind the free- reprint rights conn dd to the challenges in developing combination products: Which markets to tap where the combination products can do fairly well? Which combination prod cted to my articles. They suggested that
I was encouraging spam by making my work available to be
published by anyone. In response to their suggestions that I
am the enemy, I have added one term to my Terms of Reprint: * You may not use this article in UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email). Email distribution of this article must be opt-in email only. Despite this step, I have been accused of spam t cts are meaningful and rational? Which therapeutic categories to select? Which Combinations can address unmet needs of the patients? Do combin wice because my
article appeared in a newsletter that a complaint was lodged
against. In both cases, the SpamCop member did not file a
complaint against the person who was responsible for the
newsletter --- they filed against everyone who was in the body
of the email. Their complaint was received by the editor of the newsletter, the article writers, the advertisers, and anyone who was fortunat tions increase the patient compliance? What would be the developing cost? How to tackle the risks encountered during combination product developmen enough to be mentioned in the resources section or
the Letters to the Editor. We each had our ISP and Upline
Providers contacted if our email address appeared in the
body of the newsletter and our webhosts contacted if our
domain appeared within the body of the newsletter. The only way I can completely avoid spam complaints against my domains is to stop writing altogether. I am a writer. That is t? As combination products don't fit into the traditional categories of drugs, medical devices, or biological products, the USFDA is in the process of devel what writers do, we write. To please the SpamCop's, I must quit
being a writer or just "stay home." POLICING THE POLICE. This is silly. If we cannot trust the cops to make sure they nab the right person, who can we trust? There is in fact a movement afoot to bring SpamCop down called "Arresting SpamCop": http://www.niba.shopmystate.com/ While some of the SpamCop members are simply tired of the sa ping new procedures for reviewing their safety, efficacy and quality. Professional from academic institutions, pharmaceutical industries, health care indust e kinds of spam that irritates us, there are others within
the movement who have an axe to grind with everyone who crosses
their path. To suggest to a SpamCop member that folks should be trained in the nuances of who to complain against in a complaint, you can expect a reply like this. "Jerry" answered my suggestion precisely this way: "SpamCop users are literate, intelligent, virtually all colle y and representatives from various regulatory agencies are working out to design the regulatory requirements for manufacture and sale of combination products ge
educated, well-versed in spam, and are more computer-savvy than
99% of the world's population. It is presumptuous and arrogant
in the extreme to imply they need a Learning Annex class to
detect spam." The question I have is to whom the term "arrogant" should be applied? This is what my webhost said about my last SpamCop spam complaint, "As far as I know spam is generally considered to be . As there is an increasing trend of the combination products companies manufacturing such products should be able to tackle the problems involved in the de igh volume unsolicited email. So, as long as you are not doing
that then I am not sure why it would be called spam." CONCLUSION: While the anti-spammers rail on the ugliness of spam, it seems they are perfectly willing and likely prefer that the only people permitted to send email should be those they directly give permission to. Personally, I find the practices of the radicals of SpamCop to be m elopment. They need to be wiser in analyzing the market trends and the regulatory requirements. Companies that provide selfless information through particip re offensive than the activities of the spammers. It is a
terrible thing to say, I know, but the spammers simply irritate
me and the SpamCop fanatics try to oppress my activities. We all must make a choice, do we "stay home" or do we fight the oppressors who seek to diminish our freedom. For other stories on this subject: http://www.niba.shopmystate.com/ http://www.smithfam.com/news/june01m.htm tion in industry events and feedback to regulatory authorities would be able to face the challenges and will be successful in developing combination products
HTTP = HTML link (for blogs, profiles,phorums):
Related Articles:How to Use Personas to Connect with Your Target Audiences
|