In October of 2004, I registered with the Lancet in order to gain access to an article. Since that point, Elsevier Ltd., has been sending me email. After their mailing on July 11 of this year, I finally got tired of it, went to their website, and cleared all of the checkboxes. That is to say, “I unsubscribed from their mailings.”

Today, I got another email from them:

Received: by 10.187.221.18 with SMTP id y18cs38470faq; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.210.46.12 with SMTP id t12mr9030549ebt.114.1224604665316; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path:
Received: from mail232-19.send.smartfocusdigital.net (mail232-19.send.smartFOCUSdigital.net [89.21.232.19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 5si12432085eyf.8.2008.10.21.08.57.44; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lancetmkt@mail.elsevier-alerts.com designates 89.21.232.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=89.21.232.19;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lancetmkt@mail.elsevier-alerts.com designates 89.21.232.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lancetmkt@mail.elsevier-alerts.com
Received: from as13.site2.smartFOCUSdigital.net (172.20.232.103) by mail232-19.send.smartfocusdigital.net (PowerMTA(TM) v3.5r6) id hvntvi0icpsi for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:57:44 +0100 (envelope-from )
Received: from mail pickup service by as13.site2.smartFOCUSdigital.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:57:44 +0100
Message-ID:
From: The Lancet
To: redacted
Subject: Health System Reform in China
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:57:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=”—-=_NextPart_1855012187722123172155744686″
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2008 15:57:44.0796 (UTC) FILETIME=[C19941C0:01C93395]

An unprecedented scientific collaboration on China and global health launched by The Lancet, Peking University Health Sciences Centre, and the China Medical Board, was launched in Beijing on Oct 20, 2008. This Series-focusing on health-system Reform in China – consists of 19 commissioned research papers that bring together the most recent scientific evidence on China’s major health challenges, its health strategies, and China’s health future. The Series was produced by a team of 63 scientists, with Chinese scientists constituting two-thirds of the authors, collaborating with an international team from 10 countries.

The Lancet’s Editor, Dr Richard Horton said: “This report aims to initiate long-term collaboration between The Lancet and China, together with the China Medical Board and WHO, including critically important partners, such as scientists outside China who have strong interests in working with Chinese colleagues. The purpose of this collaboration is to introduce China’s health system, achievements, and predicaments to the world and to foster scientific and institutional alliances that can strengthen the health – and ameliorate the adverse social and environmental determinants of health – of the Chinese people. We are at the beginning of this relationship. Our report, we hope, has the potential to catalyse progress towards enhanced human health and wellbeing in China.”

Full collection of China Series available here.

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL. It is post-only and can not be read.

This email has been sent to redacted from The Lancet, Elsevier Limited, The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, registered in England with registered number 1982084, using E-mail Reaction’s Technology and Platform. To ensure delivery to your inbox (not bulk or junk folders), please add lancetmkt@elsevier-alerts.com to your address book or “safe senders” list.

To ensure delivery to your inbox (not bulk or junk folders), please add lancetmkt@elsevier-alerts.com to your address book or “safe senders” list. You are receiving this e-mail because you are a registered user of www.thelancet.com. Remember to update your account on www.thelancet.com to ensure you receive information relevant to your specialty. To update your profile, visit here, log in with your username and password, and amend your preferences.

To unsubscribe, log in with your username and password to your Email Alerts and amend your preferences.

Forgotten your password? Request a reminder.

Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Limited. All rights reserved.

Please read our site’s Privacy Policy.

THE LANCET® is a registered trademark of Elsevier Properties SA used with permission.

Since Google is based in the United States, its servers are “protected computers” under the terms of CAN-SPAM, even though Elsevier and its ESP are in the UK. In its various filings, the FTC uses the following definition of “protected computers”:

“Protected Computer” means a computer, which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that, is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States. 15 U.S.C. 7702(13).

Google’s Gmail servers would then be “protected computers” and Elsevier’s email would be subject to CAN-SPAM. So, how does this email stack up?

• This mailing came more than 10 business days after an unsubscribe request.

Given the length of time between July 11, 2008, and October 21, 2008, I think they’ve had enough time to comply with my unsubscription request. And they’ve given themselves an out. I logged in again today to double check things and found everything checked again!

• They demand that I do the following to unsubscribe from their list:
1. Log in to a preference center.
2. Update my password.
3. Fill out a form giving my “Specialty,” “Work Location,” and “Country.”
4. Uncheck all boxes.

That’s just no longer allowed under CAN-SPAM. Here’s how the FTC explained it:

In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to prohibit the imposition, as a condition for accepting or honoring a recipient’s opt-out request, of any fee, obligation to provide personally identifying information (beyond one’s email address), or any other requirement. Several commenters agreed with the Commission’s proposal to prohibit senders from charging a fee to opt out, but challenged the portion of the rule that would prevent the collection of additional personal information or require email recipients to interface with more than one Internet Web page to opt out from receiving future commercial email messages from the sender. These commenters cumulatively identified a host of factors — the risk of typographical errors, computer security issues, online identity theft, and sabotage by competitors — arguing for the necessity of collecting personal information or requiring multiple opt-out steps to verify the identity of the recipient. While the Commission recognizes that computer security and identity theft are serious problems facing online consumers, the Commission is not persuaded that imposing additional requirements on consumers who are attempting to opt out would do anything to minimize the risk of these problems. To the contrary, the Commission believes that requiring consumers to transmit additional personally identifying information would increase the risk of that information being intercepted by a hacker or rogue third party. . . .

Accordingly, the Commission adopts final Rule 316.5, which prohibits the imposition of any fee, any requirement to provide personally identifying information (beyond one’s email address), or any other obligation as a condition for accepting or honoring a recipient’s opt-out request.

And the Final Rule says:

§ 316.5 Prohibition on charging a fee or imposing other requirements on recipients who wish to opt out.

Neither a sender nor any person acting on behalf of a sender may require that any recipient pay any fee, provide any information other than the recipient’s electronic mail address and opt-out preferences, or take any other steps except sending a reply electronic mail message or visiting a single Internet Web page, in order to:

(a) Use a return electronic mail address or other Internet-based mechanism, required by 15 U.S.C. 7704(a)(3), to submit a request not to receive future commercial electronic mail messages from a sender; or

(b) Have such a request honored as required by 15 U.S.C. 7704(a)(3)(B) and (a)(4).

This Rule applies to all commercial email, whether sent with permission or not. So, passwords are out, preference centers are out, and giving out personal information (other than my email address) is out.

And so, for showing us how not to send commercial email, Elsevier gains a spot in the Email Hall of Shame.