Never understood why responsible people like a news reporting agency dont understand the difference between "E-mail Marketing" and "Spam".
One is legitimate.
The other is not.
If a site allows anonymous recipients to claim "spam" instead of complying with the Can-Spam law's requirement to opt-out, then how can the can-spam law be effective?
I could go join dr. phils website, check the box to join the newsletter, then report his site to spam cop sites until I'm blue in the face. Should his newsletters be blocked?
This is one of those areas I need education with, so thanks for any replies.
I feel like a targetted opt-in mailer for my bookmarkers would be the cats meow, but if ONE asshole decides to report me, I'm boned. And that seems to be how easy it would be
