Skip to content
SpamtacularWhere spam and policy collide
  • Home
  • About Mickey
  • Comment Policy
  • Privacy Policy

What is opt-in?

30 June 2020

Like all other reputable email service providers, my employer has an opt-in based anti-spam policy. This sometimes brings up a question about what qualifies as permissible consent under our policy. While we definitely believe that our policy is clear enough, a few weeks ago, I decided to break down some ideas about permission, consent, and opting-in under our policies in an attempt to answer those occasional questions:

  1. Permission is specific. In the context of our policies, “only ‘yes’ means ‘yes.’” We require that customers wait to send email until they have been told that it’s okay by the recipient. Customers may not guess at permission levels. If they have not been told “yes” by the recipient then our policy requires that they refrain from mailing until such time as permission has been secured.
  2. Permission is personal. If you ask me for permission to send me messages, then I can give you that permission. That permission is yours. If I post my email address on a web page, I have not given “the world” permission to send commercial messages to my address.
  3. Permission is not fungible. Unlike currency, which may change hands multiple times per day, I cannot give you permission which you may then sell, trade, or rent to someone else. Likewise, you may not purchase, trade, or rent permission to email me from someone else. This is because our policy requires “express, client-specific opt-in.”

The easiest rule of thumb to help determine whether someone is getting proper consent under our policies is to ask the question: “Will this method of gaining permission result in a person who is surprised to hear from me/my customer/my prospect?” If the answer is “yes, they would be surprised” then the requisite permission likely does not exist.

Here’s a short, non-exclusive breakdown of things that are permissible and things that are not:

Read morePolicy at scale: Understanding the issue

Permitted:

  • Notification at sign-up (where otherwise allowed by law)
  • Notification in a policy statement (where otherwise allowed by law)
  • The use of a checkbox during sign-up (pre-checked is okay unless otherwise defined by law to be “opt-out” — as is the case in Canada)
  • Domain owner issues blanket, documented consent for addresses under their control (such as internal corporate communications, or messages from a corporate provider)

Not permitted:

  • Getting addresses from a list provider/broker/rental agency/append provider
  • Getting addresses from a state agency (victims/witnesses listed in accident reports, professionals who must register with regulatory agencies, etc)
  • Trading addresses with a partner or affiliated group
  • Company issues blanket consent for addresses outside of their control (even Sundar Pichai can’t give Google permission to send marketing messages to people with hotmail.com accounts, and Satya Nadella can’t give Microsoft permission to send marketing messages to people with gmail.com addresses)
  • Scraping addresses from a website
  • Guessing at an address based upon how other addresses in the domain are formatted

Does this result in a standard that is more stringent than those found in several of the anti-spam statutes found around the world? Absolutely. But, I am convinced, after many years of consultation with mailbox providers (both B2B and B2C), spam filter providers, and anti-spam organizations (such as The Spamhaus Project), that requiring clear, customer-specific consent is what is required to send email successfully in the world today.

Read morePolicy at scale: The purpose of a policy is protection

And you can quote me on that.

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pocket
  • Email

Calendar

June 2020
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  
« Mar   Jul »

Archives

  • November 2021
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • November 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • January 2017
  • August 2016
  • June 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • November 2014
  • June 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • September 2013
  • May 2013
  • June 2012
  • April 2012
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • March 2011
  • January 2011
  • November 2010
  • July 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • March 2009
  • January 2009
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • April 2008

Categories

  • Administrivia
  • Industry
  • Law
  • Policy
  • Spam
  • Uncategorized

Copyright Spamtacular 2023 | Theme by ThemeinProgress | Proudly powered by WordPress