diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc3098.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc3098.txt | 1571 |
1 files changed, 1571 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3098.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3098.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..829ab9f --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3098.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1571 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group T. Gavin +Request for Comments: 3098 Nachman Hays Consulting +FYI: 38 D. Eastlake 3rd +Category: Informational Motorola + S. Hambridge + Intel + April 2001 + + + How to Advertise Responsibly Using E-Mail and Newsgroups + or - how NOT to + $$$$$ MAKE ENEMIES FAST! $$$$$ + +Status of this Memo + + This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does + not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this + memo is unlimited. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. + +Abstract + + This memo offers useful suggestions for responsible advertising + techniques that can be used via the internet in an environment where + the advertiser, recipients, and the Internet Community can coexist in + a productive and mutually respectful fashion. Some measure of + clarity will also be added to the definitions, dangers, and details + inherent to Internet Marketing. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction .............................................. 2 + 2. Image and Perception of the Advertiser..................... 4 + 3. Collateral Damage ......................................... 5 + 4. Caveat Mercator ........................................... 5 + 5. Targeting the Audience .................................... 7 + 6. Reaching the audience ..................................... 8 + A. Dedicated website or web page ........................ 8 + B. "Shared" Advertising website ......................... 9 + C. Netnews and E-Mailing list group postings ............ 10 + D. Compiled E-Mail Lists ................................ 11 + 7. Opt-In Mailing Lists ...................................... 12 + A. Privacy ................................................ 13 + B. Integrity .............................................. 13 + C. Protection ............................................. 16 + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + + 8. Irresponsible Behavior .................................... 16 + 9. Responsible Behavior ...................................... 17 + 10. Security Considerations ................................... 19 + Appendices .................................................... 20 + A.1 The classic Pyramid .................................... 20 + A.2 What about Ponzi? ...................................... 22 + A.3 So all multi-levels are evil? .......................... 22 + B.1 Why Web Privacy? ....................................... 23 + References .................................................... 25 + Authors' Addresses ............................................ 26 + Acknowledgments and Significant Contributors ................. 27 + Full Copyright Statement ...................................... 28 + +1. Introduction + + The Internet is not a free resource. Access to and a presence on the + 'Net comes at a cost to the participants, the service provider, and + the recipients of those services made available by the Internet. The + more readily available internet has allowed users access to an + unprecedented number of people. Due to the rapid growth and + "mainstream" acceptance of the 'Net, new opportunities have been + found for the distribution of information to the vast and ever- + growing community of Internet users. There are groups and + individuals who choose to use the 'Net for purposes for which it was + not intended, thus defying the consensus among both the practitioners + and the unwilling recipients. The aforementioned practice, of + course, is the sending of Unsolicited Commercial and Bulk E-Mail + messages, posts to Netnews groups, or other unsolicited electronic + communication. This condition has caused an awakening on the part of + the Internet community-at-large. + + There are stereotypes that must be broken before continuing. Not all + persons who are new to the Internet are ignorant of the 'Net's + history and evolution, or its proper and ethical uses. Nor are all + experienced, long-term Netizens against the use of the Internet for + advertising, marketing, or other business purposes. Where these two + groups can find commonality is in their opposition to the use of the + Internet in irresponsible ways. Some of these irresponsible uses + include, but are not limited to, the sending of Unsolicited Bulk or + Commercial E-Mail to mailing lists, individuals, or netnews groups. + In the vernacular, this activity is called "spamming" (the sending of + "spam" [1]). To understand why such activities are irresponsible, + one must first understand the true cost and ramifications of such + actions. + + The protocols and architecture upon which the 'Net is built, which + are recognized and adhered to as standards, provide for an openness + and availability which foster and encourage easy communication. + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + + These standards were developed at a time when there was no need to + consider the concept of "rejecting" information. While those + standards have evolved, they continue to emphasize open + communication. As such, they do not associate costs or impact with + the user-initiated activities which may occur. Because of this + openness, persons can and do send large volumes of E-Mail, with + little-to-no cost or financial impact for the volume of messages + sent. Needless to say, this presents the attractive option (to those + who would consider such activity) of multiplying the recipients of + their marketing material, and presumably, increasing their success- + rate. However, and to reiterate an earlier statement in this text, + there is a cost to be incurred at some point in this communication + relationship. In the case of E-Mail advertising, since the cost of + operation does not increase on the part of the sender, it must + therefore increase on the side of the recipient. + + And it does. Every recipient of every E-Mail message bears a cost, + either direct (cost per message received, an incremental increase in + connection charges) or indirect (higher service fees to recoup + infrastructural costs associated with the additional 'Net traffic + which such mass-mailings create). In addition, other resources, such + as the disk space and time of the recipient, are consumed. + + Because the recipients have no control over whether or not they will + receive such messages, the aforementioned costs are realized + involuntarily, and without consent. It is this condition (the + absence of consent to bear the costs of receipt of a mass- + distributed message) that has shaped the Internet Community's + viewpoint - that the act of sending spam constitutes a willful theft + of service, money, and/or resources. Those who choose to ignore the + financial impact, and instead focus on the consumption of indirect + resources, have been known to label spam "Internet Pollution". + + The Internet provides a tremendous opportunity for businesses, both + large and small. There is certainly money to be made using the 'Net + as a resource. This paper recommends practices and ways to use the + Internet in manners which are not parasitic; which will not, by their + mere existence, engender predetermined opposition, litigation, or + other negative conditions. This paper does not guarantee freedom + from those, or other negative responses - rather, it provides the + reader with a framework through which the marketer/advertiser and the + 'Net community (and more importantly, the seller's target market) can + coexist as well as possible. + + + + + + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + +2. Image and Perception of the Advertiser + + While it may appear to be financially attractive to advertise via the + use of Mass-Messaging ("spam"), as a responsible Internet user, + ADVERTISERS SHOULD AVOID THIS OPTION. The possibility of income + generation and market or business expansion are minuscule when + compared to some of the risks: + + - The alienation of the vast majority of the recipients + of an advertising message [2][3] + + - The damage or loss of credibility in the advertisers + market [2] + + - Loss in advertiser's and/or seller's Internet + connectivity (most service providers have strict + "zero tolerance" policies which prohibit the use + of their systems for the sending of spam, or + for encouraging or enabling such activities) + + - Civil and Criminal litigation. In the United States, + (and progressively in other sovereign states), it has + become accepted as fact that the theft-of-service + associated with spamming often constitutes an + unlawful use of private property and is actionable + as trespass to chattels (a civil law term + tantamount to "theft") in civil court [4][5][6][7] + [8]. + + It is a fundamental tenet to any Internet presence that a party will + be responsible for their Internet "image", or the personae that they + create. If an advertiser sells a product which is enjoyed by many, + and the advertiser has not alienated, offended or angered a + disproportionately larger number of uninterested recipients, that + advertiser could be viewed as a hero. Conversely, an advertiser + broadcasting their product to millions of uninterested parties, at + the parties' cost, will earn the advertiser the moniker of "spammer", + thief, or other less attractive names. The advertiser will be held + responsible for those actions, and the effects those actions have in + the marketplace, which is to say, the 'Net community. + + "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." [9] That was the + caption to an illustration published in the 1990's. The message is + clear - the Internet renders all parties anonymous. The methods used + to sell products in the traditional sales channels - language, image, + relationships, eye contact or body language - no longer apply when + measuring an Internet sale. Reputation, reliability, honesty, + trustworthiness, and integrity have taken the place of the more + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + + direct sales approaches that have been previously used. These are + dictated by the rate at which both information and misinformation + travel on the Internet. And, just as an Internet user cannot control + what messages are sent to them, neither can the Internet marketer + control the information that is disseminated about them, or their + activities. Some information will circulate that is not accurate. + Perhaps there will be cases where there will be information + circulating which is downright incorrect. But, a successful market + reputation, based on ethical behavior, will render the inevitable + piece of misinformation meaningless. For an advertiser to exist + responsibly on the Internet is for the advertiser and seller to take + active responsibility for their actions. + +3. Collateral Damage + + As this paper has pointed out, there is ample reason to expect that + the sending of spam will result in a significant level of undesirable + reactions, targeted at the advertiser and/or the seller. Death + threats, litigation and retaliatory actions are commonplace. For + these reasons, "spammers" (and in particular, those entities + providing mass-mailing services for third-party businesses) will + frequently take steps to ensure their anonymity. These actions take + various forms, and have been known to include: + + - Forging the sender name, domain name, or IP Address + of the sender (called "spoofing") + + - Sending messages through any type of hardware, software + or system which belongs to an uninvolved third-party + (called "relaying") + + Each of these activities, as well as numerous others, are criminal + acts in many countries. It is unethical to use the resources of any + other party without their express permission. To do so breaches the + laws of numerous jurisdictions and international agreements - + offenders have been successfully prosecuted in numerous + jurisdictions. + +4. Caveat Mercator + + "Let the Seller beware." Advertisers and Sellers can be held + responsible for the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of the messages + they send when applied to the recipients to whom the advertisements + are sent. For this reason, all prospective advertisers must first be + absolutely certain that the recipients of their advertising are + appropriate. For example, sending an advertisement which contains a + link to a website where content of an overt sexual nature is + displayed can have many undesirable consequences: + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + + - In many countries, providing such material to under- + age minors is a crime. As the provider of the link, + the advertiser's position is tenuous. + + - In some countries, such material is a crime to view, + possess, or distribute ("trafficking"). As the website + owner or advertiser, a party engaging in such activities + must consider the ramifications of international law. + + To prevent such risk, advertisers should qualify the recipients of + their advertising. However, it must be noted that E-Mail addresses + provide little useful information to that end. Remember, "On the + Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." Advertisers will have no way + to qualify a prospective recipient as an adult with complete + discretionary and plenipotentiary authority. In other words, an + advertisement targeting a high-income population in need of property + investment opportunities may be sent to a group of school children. + Or a dog. + + How then, does the prospective advertiser/seller determine the + quality of their leads? The essential requirement is that the + advertiser "know" their audience. + + As with all sales leads, the ones which are developed and generated + by the advertiser who will use them are of the most value. There is + an inherent value to collecting the data first-hand; by collecting + the data directly from the prospective recipient, the advertiser can + accomplish two important goals: + + - The advertiser ensures that the recipient is genuinely + interested in receiving information. Thus, the advertiser + can protect themselves from the negative impact of sending + Unsolicited E-Mail ("spam"). + + - The advertiser maintains the ability to "pre-qualify" the + lead. One interested lead is worth more, from a sales and + marketing perspective, than millions of actively + uninterested potential recipients. + + If an advertiser maintains an active website or uses other mass- + marketing tools (such as direct-mail), and they are interested in + pursuing Internet Advertising, the advertiser can add a mechanism to + gather sales lead data in a relatively simple manner. From the + perspective of Responsible Use, the only such mechanism to be + discussed in this text will be the "Opt-In" concept, to be discussed + in detail later in this document. + + + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 6] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + + Regardless of the manner in which the information is gathered, there + are certain steps which the advertiser must follow. The advertiser + must inform the person that data is being collected. In addition, + the reason why the information is being collected must be clearly + stated. BE AWARE! There are jurisdictions which restrict the + collection of Personal Data. The laws addressing collection and + future handling of Personal Information will vary from place to + place; advertisers must take steps to gain an understanding of those + laws. + + Prudence should be the advertiser's guide. If an advertiser is + unsure as to the applicability or legality of an action, both in the + jurisdiction of the advertiser as well as that of the recipients, the + action must be avoided entirely. Advertisers would be well advised + to realize that, if they engage in spamming, they will inevitably + break the laws of some jurisdiction, somewhere. + +5. Targeting the Audience + + Advertisers have something to sell. It may be a product, service, or + other tangible or intangible item. And, of course, the advertiser + needs to get the word out to the market - quickly. After all, + neither the seller or the advertiser are making sales and earning + profits if nobody is buying the product. However, before advertisers + can advertise the product, they must first determine to WHOM the + product will be advertised. + + There are considerations in determining the answer to that question. + This text has already addressed how the sending of Unsolicited + Commercial E-Mail ("spam") can generate a number of negative effects. + In addition, numerous surveys cited herein show that the vast + majority of publicly-available mailing lists and Netnews groups + similarly abhor spam. The advertiser's first step should always be + to determine which avenues are appropriate for advertising. Then, + advertisers must determine which avenues are appropriate for EACH + SPECIFIC ADVERTISEMENT. Advertisers are faced with the task of + determining which Netnews groups accept ads, then of those, which + groups are of a topic to which the proposed advertising is relevant. + Similarly, the same work should be done for mailing lists. + Advertisers should take some level of comfort in the fact that there + *are* Netnews groups and mailing lists which welcome advertising - + finding them is a worthwhile investment of the advertiser's time and + resources. + + For assistance in locating such advertising-friendly websites, + mailing lists, and Netnews groups, advertisers can consult existing + ethical and responsible Internet advertisers. Alternatively, any + low- or no-cost research resource or search engine can be employed to + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + + find those groups and lists. BUT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD AN + ADVERTISER PURCHASE A MAILING LIST AND START MAILING! There are + other reasons which will be addressed further into this document, but + to engage in such activity opens the advertiser to the liabilities + and negative ramifications previously stated. Such negative + conditions cause increased costs to the seller/advertiser, when the + risks (loss of connectivity, defense against litigation, avoiding + discovery, etc...) are factored into an advertiser's overall + operation. In short, it is in the best interests of the seller and + advertiser to ensure that the proper audience is targeted, prior to + any further steps. + +6. Reaching the audience + + Once the prospective advertiser has determined a target market for a + specific advertisement, a manner of advertising must be selected. + While these are too numerous to mention, this document concerns + itself only with those that apply to the ethical use of Internet + resources. Of those, the pertinent ones to be examined (in order of + desirability and effectiveness) are: + + - A dedicated website or web page + + - Advertisement placed on a "shared" advertising site + (placing an advertisement on an established web-page + which caters to people that indicate a potential + for interest in (a) specific type(s) of product(s). + Such advertisements can take the form of text, links, + + "Click-Through Banners", or other. + + - Netnews posting + + - Targeted E-Mail messages + + Note that any manner of blind broadcast (distribution-based) + advertising which does not involve the targeting of the recipients is + not considered responsible. + + Once the advertiser has determined the medium for reaching their + target audience, there are key points to be considered, each being + specific to the medium of advertisement: + + A. Dedicated website or web page + + Advertisers have the option of creating a dedicated website, or + a page within another site for their advertisement. If, from a + technical standpoint, an advertiser is unsure of the process for + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 8] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + + creating such a website, there are numerous resources available + to provide assistance. From no-cost avenues such as + instructional websites; to low-cost resources such as books, + videotapes or classes; to full-service businesses and + consultants who can advise advertisers throughout the entire + scope of the website/web page design, implementation and hosting + process (or any part thereof), there is a solution available + for every type of site and cost-structure. + + B. "Shared" Advertising website + + Advertisers have the option of placing their advertisements on + a website operated by a third-party. For advertisers with an + immediate need, such sites (also called "Electronic Malls", + "E-Shops" or other names) have several advantages. In some + cases, a shared site can be more cost-efficient than building + a dedicated website. Many sites will target a specific market + (refer to Section 5 of this document). By using existing + resources, advertisers can avoid the cost and burden of + owning their own site. Many websites will target a specific + advertisement to a specific audience, thus providing much of + the research for the prospective advertiser, and providing + the advertiser the means with which to reach the most receptive + audience. Additionally, advertisements from such advertising + sites can be integrated into a larger context, such as + supporting free e-mail services, Internet access, or news + broadcasts. Such integration can lend a level of credibility + to an advertising effort that might not exist otherwise. + + Some notes on the use of any type of website for advertising: + + Regardless of what method an advertiser chooses to use for + for advertising on the Web, there are some specific caveats + regarding customer interactions: + + First, the advertiser must ensure that their contact + information - name, phone, e-mail address - are all clear + and available; + + Second, advertisers should take care in creating forms + which gather information about customers, as there is + concern in the United States and other countries about + gathering information from minors without parental consent. + There is also concern about grabbing dynamic information + via persistent state information, such as through the use + of "cookies" or through data collection software resident + on the user's computer without their knowledge. + + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + + Information should only ever be gathered in a voluntary and + informed fashion, as opposed to the use of cookies, forms, + or other methods that may be available; + + Third, if advertisers DO gather information about people + and plan to use it for marketing in ANY way, advertisers + must be VERY clear to specify their plans as people + submit their information. + + C. Netnews and E-Mailing list group postings + + If an advertiser has selected newsgroups as a targeted medium, + there are critical preliminary determinations to be made. The + accepted presumption should be that a Netnews group will not + welcome spam, although there are newsgroups which are + advertising-friendly. However, the only way to determine + whether a group welcomes a particular type or form of + advertising is to either: + + - read the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) to determine + what is specifically permitted or prohibited on that + particular group. + + or + + - ask the group by posting a message which briefly + notes how you intend to advertise your product. Do not + mention any product details in this message, merely ask + if the group would object. + + or + + - if it is a "moderated" newsgroup, send an e-mail to + the group's moderator. Many group moderators will have + a specific preference for how to deal with advertising, + through compilation, "digest" formats, or other. + + It is a recommendation that prospective advertisers read the + groups to which they choose to post for a period before posting. + Generally, an extended period of reading the messages in the + group will give the advertiser an indication as to how their + advertisement will be viewed or accepted on the group in + question. + + However, this period of reading should not be used as a + substitute for the suggestions above. Many groups will have + specific instructions and/or requirements for posting + + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + + advertisements. Advertisers who fail to meet those + requirements will be undertaking irresponsible behavior, + and will be subject to the effects thereof. + + D. Compiled E-Mail Lists + + It bears repeating at this point: Let the Seller Beware. The + material discussed in Section 4 of this document is + particularly relevant in the consideration of E-mail, and + the use of compiled lists of e-mail addresses for advertising. + Advertisers should understand that they bear the responsibility + for ensuring the proper targeting of their recipients; the + proper display of their or their seller's identities; and the + use of resources or systems only with the express permission + of the owners of those systems. + + When faced with the task of collecting and compiling recipient + information, one option that is frequently presented is that of + pre-compiled mailing lists. Most often, these are advertised + using the very method which is irresponsible, that of + Unsolicited E-Mail. There are numerous reasons why these lists + should not be used. + + Many suppliers create mailing lists from addresses which they + have gathered in mildly to extremely unethical ways. Many of + these list-makers rely on grabbing volumes of addresses without + checking their legitimacy. In other words, they send out + software robots to grab addresses they find in News or Mailing + List archives which may be many years old! In addition, many + list owners create addresses using a "dictionary", creating + vast numbers of invalid addresses which are then sold to + unsuspecting purchasers. People change jobs, change ISPs, + and change everything about themselves over time; trusting + a third party for a mailing list is just not wise. + + It is known that some mailing list providers have created + mailing lists from E-mail addresses of people who have asked to + be REMOVED from their mailing lists. They then sell these lists + to other advertisers who think they're getting a list of people + who will welcome the unsolicited information. + + Regardless of the source, however, advertisers and sellers bear + the responsibility for maintenance of their lists. Purchasing a + list from a third-party shifts the maintenance costs of that + list onto the advertiser who uses it. Needless to say, this is + only economical for mailing list vendor. + + + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + + Given these conditions, all evidence points to the fact that + the greatest level of control of an advertiser's own success + and liability rests with the advertiser themselves. This being + the case, advertisers are faced with the task of compiling their + own lists of willing recipients of Advertising-related E-Mail + messages. As discussed previously, those leads which are + generated by the advertiser are the most likely to have an + interest in the advertisement, so they are also the least likely + to protest the receipt of such advertisements via E-Mail. It + is this circumstance that makes the use of an "Opt-In" list + (refer to Section 7 of this text) to be perhaps the most + successful method of advertising distribution on the Internet. + + It must be noted here - for the same reasons that apply above, + if an advertiser has compiled their own mailing list for their + purposes, that list must NEVER be sold to another party. Just + as it is considered unethical to purchase a third-party mailing + list, it is equally so to be the provider of that list. + Customers who wish to receive information about your product + are not likely to respond favorably when contacted in an + unsolicited fashion by your business associates; protect your + reputation from the backlash of bad-faith that can occur in + such cases. + +7. Opt-In Mailing Lists + + This document has laid out the basic facts of Internet Marketing; the + advertiser bears the responsibility of their actions; there will + always be recipients of that advertising who do not wish to receive + it; there are reactions to every responsible and irresponsible act. + Given these considerations, and taking into account the central + message of this document; that Internet Advertising *can* be a + successful venture for everyone involved; there remains a key tool + for the Internet advertiser to harness. Opt-In mailing lists provide + the prospective Internet advertiser with the control they need over + the list of their prospective target audience (validity of e-mail + address; applicability to the intended product; willingness to + receive advertising via e-mail). + + Opt-In mailing lists are consistently shown to be more effective in + starting and maintaining customer relationships than any other type + of Internet advertising; studies have shown Opt-In mailing to be + Eighteen (18%) Percent more effective than Banner advertising [10], + which has a response rate of only 0.65%. It is so successful because + the recipients of those E-mailed advertisements made a specific + effort to receive them, thus indicating their interest in receiving + information about products which the recipient felt were of interest + to themselves. + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + + Advertisers wishing to employ Opt-In mailing lists in their + advertising can turn to several resources for assistance. If an + advertiser operates their own website or web page, they already + possess the most important facet, a web presence with which to invite + participation in the Opt-In list. If the advertiser chooses to use a + shared website for their product, they can also utilize an Opt-In + data gathering mechanism. There are numerous forms and technologies + that can be employed to build an Opt-In list - this document will not + address them individually. Rather, the purpose of this section is to + provide the advertiser with information which, when used, will help + protect the advertiser, and make the advertising experience a + successful one. + + A. Privacy + + As stated previously, advertisers should take care in + gathering information from Opt-In participants. First and + foremost, the person providing the information must be aware + that they are doing so. By taking these preliminary steps, + an advertiser decreases the risk of having any messages + interpreted as spam. If, in submitting information for any + purpose, the advertiser intends to use the submitted or + inferred data for any mailings, there should be clear + language indicating so. Furthermore, persons submitting data + must be given the choice to "Opt-Out"; that is, to choose to + submit the data but NOT receive any advertisements. A safe + course of action is for the advertiser to configure their + data-gathering so "Opt-Out" is the default; that is, to + ensure that any members of the list have made a concerted + effort to get onto said list. In nearly all cases, merely + having a "check-box" available with the caption + + "Please send me E-Mail advertisements or + announcements about your products." + + is sufficient. + + It is crucial that advertisers be aware that different + jurisdictions deal with the collection of personal data + differently - the burden of verification of these laws rests + on the advertisers. For additional information on privacy, + refer to Appendix B of this document. + + B. Integrity + + When maintaining a list where names can be submitted via some + type of public or semi-public resource, such as a website, + advertisers should take steps to verify every subscription to + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 13] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + + that list. There are key pieces of data that can be used to + verify the integrity of a particular subscription request, + but the only person who can attest to the genuineness of the + actual act of subscribing is the owner of the E-Mail address + which has been submitted. + + To protect themselves from the risk of inadvertently spamming + an unsuspecting recipient, advertisers should immediately + confirm any submission. In doing so, advertisers can satisfy + all requirements for responsible confirmation of a subscription + request. In addition, if a person's E-Mail address has been + submitted to a list without the knowledge or permission of the + owner of that E-mail address, immediate notification of that, + and the receipt of supporting data, enables the owner of that + account to act accordingly to protect their account from future + wrongdoing. + + When generating confirmations, the following information must + be provided to the subscriber: + + - the E-Mail address subscribed + + - the manner in which it was subscribed + (website or mailing list address) + + - the Date and Time of the subscription request + (via NTP, for uniformity in future reference) + + - the IP Address of the host which submitted + the request + + - the full headers of the subscription request + (where applicable, such as mailing lists) + + - the Name, website address, and contact E-Mail + address of the advertiser + + - instructions to the recipient as to how to + permanently remove themselves from the list + + In addition, a well-represented business will make an effort + to communicate this material in a way which the average + recipient can understand and relate to, such as the following + example [11]: + + + + + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 14] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + + - - - - - - C O N F I R M A T I O N - - - - - - - - - - - - + + Thank you for your interest in Widget Sales! + + This is confirmation of your subscription request for the + Widget Sales E-mail list. + + You are currently subscribed with this address: + + foo@bar.example + + Your request was received via our website at + + http://www.example.com/input.html + + If you did not submit this request, someone may have + submitted it for you, or may be pretending to be you. + + If you wish to be removed from this list, Reply to this + message with the word UNSUBSCRIBE as the body of the + message. + + If you feel you were added to the list without your + permission, the information below should be forwarded to + your ISP's Administrative staff for follow-up, with an + explanation of your concern. + + As stated in RFC-2635, "you can do this by sending mail + to "Postmaster@your-site.example". Your postmaster should be + an expert at reading mail headers and will be able to tell if + the originating address is forged. He or she may be able to + pinpoint the real culprit and help close down the site. If + your postmaster wants to know about unsolicited mail, be sure + s/he gets a copy, including headers. You will need to find + out the local policy and comply." + + Widget Sales, Inc. | http://www.example.com + Responsible Internet | info@example.com + Marketing - Made Easy! | cust-serv@example.com + ----------------------------------------------------------- + + Submission Information: + + Request received for foo@bar.example from 192.168.0.1 at + 06:41:55:13(GMT) on 07.03.1999 via + + http://www.example.com/input.html + + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 15] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + + E-Mail headers follow: + + Received: from 01.anytown.dialup.example.net + ([192.168.0.1]) by adshost.example.com + (FooBarMail v01.01.01.01 111-111) with SMTP + id <19990703054206.VDQL6023@77.anytown.dialup.example.net> + for <marcel@example.com>; Sat, 3 July 1999 01:41:55 +0000 + From: Customer <foo@bar.example> + To: mail-list@example.com + Subject: Submission Request + Date: Sat, 03 July 1999 01:41:55 -0400 + Organization: Zem & Zem Bedding Company, Inc. + Reply-To: foo@bar.example + Message-ID: <k???12qelNxp7Q=??3dbgLHWTLv@4??.bar.example> + X-Mailer: FooBarMail HTTPMailer Extension 1.0.532 + MIME-Version: 1.0 + Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii + Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + + C. Protection + + Advertisers should be advised of certain measures they can take + to protect themselves. Frequently, and especially when the + traffic on a particular mailing list is low, a subscriber may + forget that they had requested membership on that list. When a + new message is sent and subsequently received, said recipient + may lodge a complaint of spamming. If this situation is + multiplied by several recipients, the advertiser and/or seller + risks losing their Internet access, even if they have acted + responsibly throughout the process. + + For this reason, advertisers should keep an archive of all + submission requests which are received. This archive should be + kept as diligently as the advertiser's operational data, and + should be similarly safeguarded. Having such requests available + will protect the advertisers from any reports of spamming, + whether they are malicious, or the result of a genuine + misunderstanding. For reasons that should be obvious, those + messages should remain archived for a period that lasts AT + LEAST as long as the list remains active. While this is not + necessarily a requirement for responsible behavior, it is a + measure of safety for the responsible advertiser. + +8. Irresponsible Behavior + + Shotgunning a message doesn't really work in any medium, but it is + much easier to do with the Internet than with paper mail or telephone + solicitations. The steps which have been provided in this paper will + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 16] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + + assist the advertiser in creating a favorable environment for their + work; in ensuring that they maintain a responsible presence on the + Internet; and in targeting the types of customer and the methods to + be used to reach those potential customers. Given these steps, there + are some actions which should be avoided as the basis for any + Responsible advertising presence on the Internet. + + DON'T advertise money-making opportunities that can, in any way, be + construed as Pyramid or Ponzi schemes. (For information regarding + those types of "investments", refer to Appendix A.1 of this + document.) + + DON'T forge E-mail headers to make it look as if the messages + originate from anywhere other than where they really originate. Many + domain owners have won litigation against advertisers who have used + their domain name in an effort to conceal their true identity. + [12][13][14] + + DON'T send out any sort of bogus message to "cover" the intended + activity, which is advertising. In other words, don't pretend that a + personal message from the advertiser to someone else was sent to a + mailing list by mistake so that the body of that message can be used + to advertise, as in this example: + + Dear Tony - had a great time at lunch yesterday. Per your + request, here's the information on the latest widget I + promised [...]. + + DON'T use overly-general statements such as "Our research shows + you're interested in our product." Most recipients know this is + usually a bogus claim. Use of it can rob any legitimacy that the + advertisement may hold. + + DON'T create mailing lists from third party sources (see Section 6; + Part D of this document, above). + + DON'T SELL MAILING LISTS!!! + + Enough negativity! Now for some helpful suggestions. + +9. Responsible Behavior + + DO create a lively signature which tells the minimum about the + product/service. But keep it to 4 lines total (four lines is the + maximum recommended length for signatures). + + + + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 17] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + + DO participate in mailing lists and newsgroups which discuss topics + related to the particular product/service. Advertisers will find + people of a similar interest there and many potential customers. So + long as an advertiser isn't offensive in their interactions with + these groups they can find their participation quite rewarding. + + DO ask people if they want to be part of any mailing list that is + created. Advertisers must be clear about their intentions of how + they plan to use the list and any other information that is + collected. + + DO tell people how list data has been gathered. If recipients are + signed up from a web page, make sure the prospective recipient is + aware that they will be getting mail. Many web pages have getting + mail selected as default. Our recommendation is that the default be + that recipients do NOT wish to receive mailings - even if the + prospective recipients find an advertiser's site of interest. + + DO respect the privacy of customers. Keep a mailing list private. + For an advertiser to sell a mailing list is not responsible or + ethical. In addition, if offering any type of online transactions, + advertisers should take care to encrypt any sensitive information The + addresses of the list members should never be viewable by the list + recipients, to protect your list members' privacy. + + DO take steps to safeguard all of the personal information that is + being taken from customers, such as Credit Card or other Payment + information. Provide honest information regarding the methods being + used to protect the customer's data. + + DO let recipients know how to remove themselves from a mailing list. + Advertisers should make this as easy as possible, and place the + instructions in every message sent. + + DO let people know for what purpose any data is being collected. + Advertisers must ensure that their plans regarding data collection + are legal. + + Advertisers and Sellers can check with the web site of the Better + Business Bureau, which operates in the United States and Canada. + (www.bbb.org) This organization has several programs and services + which can help advertisers in those countries, and has other + resources which will benefit advertisers of any nationality. + + "Advertisers should advertise responsibly the better mousetrap they + have built, and the world will beat a path to their E-mail address." + + + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 18] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + +10. Security Considerations + + This memo offers suggestions for responsible advertising techniques + that can be used via the Internet. It does not raise or address + security issues, but special attention should be paid to the section + on "Privacy". While not strictly a network security consideration, + privacy considerations can have legal ramifications that deserve + special attention. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 19] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + +Appendices + + Most readers of this document are probably aware as to why "Pyramid" + or "Ponzi" schemes are fraudulent, and in most places, criminal. + Appendix "A" describes how these schemes work and some of the risks + inherent in their operation and participation. + + For a topical review of Privacy law across multiple jurisdictions, + including several sovereign nations, Appendix "B" provides some + resources for advertisers or other interested parties. + +A.1 The classic Pyramid + + In the classic Pyramid scheme, there is a list of a few people. A + participant sends money to one or all of them, and then shifts that + person off the list and adds their own name. The participant then + sends the same message to N people.... + + The idea is that when a recipient's name gets to the special place on + the list (usually at the "top" of the pyramid), they will get lots of + money. The problem is that this only works for everyone if there are + an infinite number of people available. + + As an example, examine a message with a list of four people where + each participant sends US$5.00 to each; removes the first name, and + adds their own name at the bottom. There may also be some content + encouraging the participants to send "reports" to people who submit + money. Presume the rules encourage the participants to send out lots + of copies until they each get ten direct responses, 100 second level + responses, etc., and claim there is a guarantee that the participants + will earn lots of money fast if they follow the procedure. + + First, some person or group has to have started this. When they did, + they were able to specify all four names so it was probably four + people working together to split any profits they might get from + being the top of the pyramid (or maybe they sent out four versions of + the original letter with their name order rotated). In some cases, + all names on the list have been proven to be the same person, + operating under assumed business names! + + While the letters that accompany these things usually have all kinds + of language about following the instructions exactly, the most + rational thing for a dishonest participant to do if they decided to + participate in such a thing would be to; + + + + + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 20] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + + (1) send no money to anyone else; and + + (2) find three other people and replace all the names on + the list. + + But, presume that not just this participant, but everyone who ever + participates decides to follow the "rules". To avoid the start-up + transient, assume that it starts with one name on the list and for + the next three layers of people, one name gets added and only after + the list is up to four does any participant start dropping the "top" + name. + + What does this look like after nine levels if everything works + perfectly? The following table shows, for nine levels, how many + people have to participate, what each person pays out, gets in, and + nets. + + Level People Out In Net + 1 1 0 $55,550 $55,550 + 2 10 $5 $55,550 $55,545 + 3 100 $10 $55,550 $55,540 + 4 1,000 $15 $55,550 $55,535 + 5 10,000 $20 $55,550 $55,530 + 6 100,000 $20 $5,550 $5,530 + 7 1,000,000 $20 $550 $530 + 8 10,000,000 $20 $50 $30 + 9 100,000,000 $20 0 -20 + + So if this scheme ever progressed this far (which is extremely + unlikely) over 10,000 people would have made the "guaranteed" + $50,000. In order to do that, one hundred million people (or over + ten thousand times as many) are out twenty dollars. And it can't + continue because the scheme is running out of people. Level 10 would + take one billion people, all of whom have $20 to submit, which + probably don't exist. Level 11 would take ten billion, more people + than exist on the earth. + + Pyramid schemes are _always_ like this. A few people who start them + may make money, only because the vast majority lose money. People + who participate and expect to make any money, except possibly those + who start it, are being defrauded; for this reason, such schemes are + illegal in many countries. + + + + + + + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 21] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + +A.2 What about Ponzi? + + A Ponzi scheme is very similar to a pyramid except that all of the + money goes through a single location. This method of confidence + fraud is named after Charles Ponzi, a Boston, Massachusetts + "businessman" who claimed to have discovered a way to earn huge + returns on money by buying international postal reply coupons and + redeeming them in postage for more than their cost. Early + "investors" in this scheme did get their promised return on + investment, but with money that later investors were investing. + Ponzi was actually doing nothing with the money other than deriving + his own income from it, and paying latter investors' money to earlier + investors. + + Notice the similarity to early pyramid participants, who "earn" money + from the later participants. + + Just as pyramids always collapse, Ponzi schemes always collapse also, + when the new people and new money run out. This can have serious + consequences. People in Albania died and much of that country's + savings were squandered when huge Ponzi schemes that "seemed" to be + partly backed by the government collapsed. + +A.3 So all multi-levels are evil? + + No, all multi-level systems are not the same, nor are they all + "evil". + + If what is moving around is just money and maybe "reports" or the + like that are very cheap to produce, then almost certainly it is a + criminal scam. If there are substantial goods and/or services being + sold through a networked tier-system at reasonable prices, it is more + likely to be legitimate. + + If the advertisement says participants can make money "fast", "easy" + or "guaranteed", be very suspicious. If it says participants may be + able to make money by putting in lots of hard work over many months + but there is no guarantee, then it may be legitimate. As always, if + it seems "too good to be true", it probably is. + + If people are paid to recruit "members" or can "buy" a high "level", + it is almost certainly a criminal scam. If people are paid only for + the sale of substantial goods and/or services, it is more likely to + be legitimate. + + + + + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 22] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + + It may also be worthwhile to look at the history of the organization + and its founders/leaders. The longer it has been around, the more + likely it is to continue being around. If its founders or leaders + have a history of fraud or crime, a person should think very + carefully before being part of it. + +B.1 Why Web Privacy? + + Directories, lists or other collection sources of personal data are + the current informational "gold rush" for Internet Marketers. In the + United States and other countries, there is no explicit guarantee of + personal privacy. Such a right, under current legislation, stands + little chance against certain electronic technologies. Some members + of the global community have expressed concern regarding perceived + intrusion into their personal privacy. Still, the collection and + sale of such information abounds. + + Self-regulation by businesses utilizing the Internet is the first + choice of legislators, commercial websites, and Internet aficionados. + + However, the anticipated profit to be made by selling personal data + and by using these lists for advertisement purposes, often dissuades + self-regulation. + + United States Senator Patrick Leahy, Ranking Minority member of the + Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate (at the time of the + writing of this document) states very succinctly why we should + respect Internet Privacy: + + "Good privacy policies make good business policies. New + technologies bring with them new opportunities, both for + the businesses that develop and market them, and for + consumers. It does not do anyone any good for consumers + to hesitate to use any particular technology because they + have concerns over privacy. That is why I believe that + good privacy policies make good business policies." + + The Center for Democracy and Technology suggests Five Conditions that + websites should use to be considerate of individual's rights to + privacy: + + + + + + + + + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 23] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + + - Notice of Data Collection + + - Choice to Opt Out + + - Access to Data to rectify errors + + - Adequate Security of Information Database + + - Access to contact persons representing the data collector + + Notice that the practice of data collection authorization can be + accomplished using something as simple as an automated response E- + Mail message. Such notices should contain easily understood + information about the collecting party's identity, and instructions + as to how a customer can remove themselves from the collected + population. This will help assure prospective customers that an + advertiser is a business of integrity. + + Businesses that pursue international trade (do business across + national boundaries, overseas, etc...) bear the risk of facing legal + prosecution for personal privacy violations. The European + Communities have legislation for the flow of Personal Information. + If an advertiser is interested in pursuing business interests across + borders, and particularly if a business intends to solicit and/or + share Personal Information, the advertiser/seller must be able to + guarantee the same privacy considerations as a foreign counterpart, + or as a business operating in the nation in which the advertiser is + soliciting/performing their business. + + Other countries and their legislation are shown below: + + Germany - BundesDatenSchutzGesetz (BDSG) + + France - Commision nationale de l'informatique et de + libertes (CNIL) + + UK - Data Protection Act (DPA) + + Netherlands - Wet PersoonsRegistraties (WPR) + + Australia - Privacy Act of 1998 (OECD DAta Protection + Guidelines) + + Canada - The Personal Information Protection and + Electronic Documents Act + + + + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 24] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + +References + + [1] Hambridge, S. and A. Lunde, "DON'T SPEW: A Set of Guidelines for + Mass Unsolicited Mailings and Postings (spam*)", FYI 35, RFC + 2635, June 1999. + + [2] Internet Spam / UCE Survey #1. + http://www.survey.net/spam1r.html, July 24, 1997. + + [3] ISPs and Spam: the impact of spam on customer retention and + acquisition. Gartner Group, San Jose, CA. June 14, 1999. Pg. 7. + + [4] CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., No. C2-96-1070 (S.D. + Ohio Oct. 24, 1996) (temporary restraining order) [WWW], + preliminary injunction entered, 962 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D. Ohio + Feb. 3, 1997) [WWW | Lexis | Westlaw], final consent order filed + (E.D. Pa. May 9, 1997)[WWW]. + + http://www.leepfrog.com/E- + Law/Cases/CompuServe_v_Cyber_Promo.html + http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/cs-cp2.html + http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/cs-cp3.html + + [5] America Online, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., No. 96-462 (E.D. + Va. complaint filed Apr. 8, 1996) [WWW] (subsequently + consolidated with Cyber Promotions' action filed in E.D. Pa.). + + [6] Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. America Online, Inc., C.A. No. 96- + 2486, 1996 WL 565818 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 5, 1996) (temporary + restraining order) [WWW | Westlaw], rev'd (3d Cir. Sept. 20, + 1996), partial summary judgment granted, 948 F. Supp. 436 (E.D. + Pa. Nov. 4, 1996) (on First Amendment issues) [WWW | Lexis | + Westlaw], reconsideration denied, 948 F. Supp. 436, 447 (Dec. + 20, 1996) [WWW | Lexis | Westlaw], temporary restraining order + denied, 948 F. Supp. 456 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 26, 1996) (on antitrust + claim) [WWW | Lexis | Westlaw], settlement entered (E.D. Pa. + Feb. 4, 1997) [NEWS.COM report]. + + [7] America Online, Inc. v. Over the Air Equipment, Inc. (E.D. Va. + complaint filed Oct. 2, 1997) [WWW] [NEWS.COM report], + preliminary injunction entered (Oct. 31, 1997) [NEWS.COM + report], settlement order entered (Dec. 18, 1997) [Wired News + report]. + + [8] America Online, Inc. v. Prime Data Worldnet Systems (E.D. Va. + complaint filed Oct. 17, 1997) [WWW] [NEWS.COM report]. + + [9] Steiner, P. "New Yorker". July 5, 1993. p.61. + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 25] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + + [10] Spam slam -- opt-in e-mail gains favor. + http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2267565,00.html. + May 28, 1999. + + [11] Eastlake, D., Manros, C. and E. Raymond, "Etymology of 'Foo'", + RFC 3092, April 2001. + + [12] Parker, Zilker Internet Park, Inc., Parker, Rauch, Texas + Internet Service Providers Association & EFF-Austin v. C.N. + Enterprises & Craig Nowak [WWW]. Available: + http://www.rahul.net/falk/zilkerjudge.txt + + [13] Parker, Zilker Internet Park, Inc., Parker, Rauch, Texas + Internet Service Providers Association & EFF-Austin v. C.N. + Enterprises & Craig Nowak [WWW]. Available: + http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/flowers3.html + + [14] WebSystems v. Cyberpromotions, Inc and Sanford Wallace [WWW]. + Available: http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/websys1.html + +Authors' Addresses + + Ted Gavin + Nachman Hays Consulting, Inc. + 822 Montgomery Avenue, Suite 204 + Narberth, PA 19072 USA + + EMail: tedgavin@newsguy.com + + + Donald E. Eastlake 3rd + Motorola + 155 Beaver Street + Milford, MA 01757 + + EMail: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com + + + Sally Hambridge + Intel Corp + 2200 Mission College Blvd + Santa Clara, CA 95052 + + EMail: sallyh@ludwig.sc.intel.com + + + + + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 26] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + +Acknowledgements and Significant Contributors + + JC Dill + jcdill@vo.cnchost.com + + Barbara Jennings + Sandia National Laboratories + + Albert Lunde + Northwestern University + + April Marine + Internet Engines, Inc. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 27] + +RFC 3098 Advertising Responsibly April 2001 + + +Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. + + This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to + others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it + or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published + and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any + kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are + included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this + document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing + the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other + Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of + developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for + copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be + followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than + English. + + The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be + revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. + + This document and the information contained herein is provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING + TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING + BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION + HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF + MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Acknowledgement + + Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the + Internet Society. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Gavin, et al. Informational [Page 28] + |