Unsolicited email from Curry PC World without option to remove from mailing list

[JoeJoe]

Bought something from them a few months ago - order was placed online
and then product collected from a store.

A few weeks ago I started to receive this email from them every couple
of days:
https://tinyurl.com/ya85tmot

As you can from it, there is no option to be removed from their mailing
list or to stop receiving this junk mail.

Are they allowed to do that under current legislation?

[Graham.]

Joe Cocker wants to share the file assets.safety.currys.co.pdf with
you.

More information
More information
Join Dropbox to view this file



Life's too short ;-)

By the way where are you, It has been suggested that there are
fundamental differences between English/Welsh and Scottish
legislation.

--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Roland Perry]

In message <t3lllclbkq7o7f9vg...@4ax.com>, at 00:39:25 on
Tue, 4 Jul 2017, Graham. <graham...@mail.com> remarked:

>By the way where are you, It has been suggested that there are
>fundamental differences between English/Welsh and Scottish
>legislation.

Unsolicited email law is not a devolved matter, deriving as it does from
EU Directives. It should be pretty much identical all over the EU.

(cont'd: Oh dear another thing to sort out post-Brexit).
--
Roland Perry

[JoeJoe]

A better/easier way to get a copy of the email here:

http://www120.zippyshare.com/v/zpqEPjIs/file.html

[LSR]

On 03/07/2017 17:18, JoeJoe wrote:

Not shared on dropbox. But was it this?
http://assets.safety.currys.co.uk/q/1fuuhpJu5t6Wxnwvqadnmob/wv

I got that recently and haven't bought anything from Currys / Pissy
World for years.

--
Reentrant

[Roland Perry]

In message <ENmdneOVpqrA88fE...@brightview.co.uk>, at
17:18:35 on Mon, 3 Jul 2017, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> remarked:

I'm not a "member of dropbox" so I can't see that. However, it's true
that if you are an individual they should provide a 'Simple Way' to opt
out of the mailings now, even if they *are* allowed to start sending
them to customers after a purchase.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/marketing/
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <ucGdnQjft5UT38bE...@brightview.co.uk>, at
08:23:56 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> remarked:

>A better/easier way to get a copy of the email here:
>
>http://www120.zippyshare.com/v/zpqEPjIs/file.html

Apologies to the group - I should not have approved that link, which is
infested with clickbait and unsolicited redirections.

Please everyone, don't click on it.
--
Roland Perry

[R. Mark Clayton]

You are their online customer, so the argument is that the email, which may well be* about possible recalls etc., is not unsolicited.



* I am NOT registering to see it this IS how you end up getting spammed.

[Robin]

On 03/07/2017 17:18, JoeJoe wrote:

> Bought something from them a few months ago - order was placed online
> and then product collected from a store.
>
> A few weeks ago I started to receive this email from them every couple
> of days:
> https://tinyurl.com/ya85tmot
>

I have a Dropbox account. But I was not able to view the file: "You
don’t have access to this content." In other words, you may have
uploaded something but you have not given others permission to access it.

Given your second attempt seems to have been less than successful, might
I suggest you tell us more about the contents of the email? I suggest
that partly because it would be bizarre for a company to send the *same*
marketing email every couple of days.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[JoeJoe]

Oops! Had no idea at all as using adBlocker and nothing untoward ever
come on my screen...

[JoeJoe]

Looks very similar (probably identical, but cannot be sure).

[JoeJoe]

Well, I bought an item from, and received it.

The email is not about recalls, makes no reference to the product I
bought, and does not even mention me by name ("Dear Customer"...).

Do these emails not supposed to have an easy opt out option?

[Roland Perry]

In message <v-idnU6ft-jo_sbE...@brightview.co.uk>, at
10:44:18 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> remarked:

>The email is not about recalls,

Interestingly, it appears that I got one of "these?" emails on the 1st
July. It says

"Subject: How to register your electrical goods

To keep you up to date on the latest safety advice... etc etc"

Perhaps you could post the plain text of the first couple of sentences
of yours, here. Or maybe it has he same T&C near the bottom:

"Terms and conditions

This email was sent to you because you gave us your email address when
youbought a product from DSG Retail Limited (Currys, PC World, Dixons
Travel and Currys PC World Business) and we think it's important to get
this safety related message to you."

>makes no reference to the product I bought, and does not even mention
>me by name ("Dear Customer"...).

Ditto x2, and also it's a bit too easy to say "but I've never bought
anything off Currys" when in fact it's from group HQ which is called
"Currys PC World", this week.

I ought something from PC World a couple of years ago (software).

>Do these emails not supposed to have an easy opt out option?

I'm inclined to think this email is a post-Grenfell knee-jerk reaction
to the fact that should some white goods turn out to need a recall, they
can say they've done their best to keep in touch with their customers.

To that extent (and if they only send it once) it's potentially in the
public interest for them to be able to send it.

For a definitive answer I suggest someone calls the ICO and asks for
their opinion.
--
Roland Perryv

[JoeJoe]

The only thing I have even bought from them online was a Logitech wired
USB keyboard (was a couple of £ cheaper than Amazon...) 3-4 months ago...

I think they want to tempt you into giving your details again, but under
different T&C to when you made the purchase... Similar to what most
shops now try to do - I bought a couple of birthday cards on the High St
the other day and was asked to give them my email address so that they
could email me the receipt (the one that was already in my hand...)

[Roland Perry]

In message <y9SdnVnZQqJD58bE...@brightview.co.uk>, at
12:24:11 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> remarked:

>On 04/07/2017 11:08, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <v-idnU6ft-jo_sbE...@brightview.co.uk>, at
>> 10:44:18 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> remarked:
>>
>>> The email is not about recalls,
>>
>> Interestingly, it appears that I got one of "these?" emails on the 1st
>> July. It says
>>
>> "Subject: How to register your electrical goods
>>
>> To keep you up to date on the latest safety advice... etc etc"
>>

** Perhaps you could post the plain text of the first couple of
** sentences of yours, here. Or maybe it has he same T&C near the
** bottom:

>>
>> "Terms and conditions
>>
>> This email was sent to you because you gave us your email address
>> when youbought a product from DSG Retail Limited (Currys, PC World,
>> Dixons Travel and Currys PC World Business) and we think it's
>> important to get this safety related message to you."
>>
>>> makes no reference to the product I bought, and does not even mention
>>> me by name ("Dear Customer"...).
>>
>> Ditto x2, and also it's a bit too easy to say "but I've never bought
>> anything off Currys" when in fact it's from group HQ which is called
>> "Currys PC World", this week.
>>
>> I ought something from PC World a couple of years ago (software).
>>
>>> Do these emails not supposed to have an easy opt out option?
>>
>> I'm inclined to think this email is a post-Grenfell knee-jerk reaction
>> to the fact that should some white goods turn out to need a recall, they
>> can say they've done their best to keep in touch with their customers.
>>
>> To that extent (and if they only send it once) it's potentially in the
>> public interest for them to be able to send it.
>>
>> For a definitive answer I suggest someone calls the ICO and asks for
>> their opinion.
>
>The only thing I have even bought from them online was a Logitech wired
>USB keyboard (was a couple of £ cheaper than Amazon...) 3-4 months ago...
>
>I think they want to tempt you into giving your details again, but under
>different T&C to when you made the purchase...

Unless you can answer the question highlighted above, and post details
of what it is about the T&C you think they wish to change, then I don't
think I can be any more help.

>Similar to what most shops now try to do

YMMV. I patronise hundreds of shops, and none has done this to me.

> - I bought a couple of birthday cards on the High St
>the other day and was asked to give them my email address so that they
>could email me the receipt (the one that was already in my hand...)

--
Roland Perry

[Mike Scott]

That's a laugh.

That link says
".....are given a simple way to [unsubscribe] in future messages.

When you send an electronic marketing message, you must tell the
recipient who you are and provide a valid contact address."


I had strong words with my high street bank (nameless as this is ulm)
who started sending me advertising junk. My online settings say "no
emails"; the emails didn't have a displayed unsubscribe link. Oh, and
no contact address either.

The branch assistant (I assured her the emails were genuine, which they
are) asked her manager for advice - and said to report on the police
fraud website! And yes, she confirmed she was asking me to report her
own bank to the police :-} Tempting, oh, so tempting.

They just don't seem to care.

You couldn't make it up.



--
Mike Scott (unet2 <at> [deletethis] scottsonline.org.uk)
Harlow Essex
"The only way is Brexit" -- anon.

[Mike Scott]

On 04/07/17 09:13, Roland Perry wrote:

After posting a note about my bank, I remembered I'd also had some junk
from the OP's company. Like the bank email, there's in fact a
non-obvious unsubscribe email header (I found it by accident in the
bank's email)

Look for a List-Unsubscribe: header Which may even work. Maybe.

By the way, some years ago, I had a problem with an office company
sending me spam. I took to complaining to their ISP each time. For some
reason, they kept changing ISP (several times) -- the junk eventually
stopped. I think of it as a small victory!

[JoeJoe]

>> USB keyboard (was a couple of £ cheaper than Amazon...) 3-4 months ago...

>>
>> I think they want to tempt you into giving your details again, but under
>> different T&C to when you made the purchase...
>
> Unless you can answer the question highlighted above, and post details
> of what it is about the T&C you think they wish to change, then I don't
> think I can be any more help.
>
>> Similar to what most shops now try to do
>
> YMMV. I patronise hundreds of shops, and none has done this to me.
>
>> - I bought a couple of birthday cards on the High St
>> the other day and was asked to give them my email address so that they
>> could email me the receipt (the one that was already in my hand...)
>

This is the message I received:

http://assets.safety.currys.co.uk/q/12ECx5xEGOFkofcykLUP8fYP/wv

[JoeJoe]

>> USB keyboard (was a couple of £ cheaper than Amazon...) 3-4 months ago...

>>
>> I think they want to tempt you into giving your details again, but under
>> different T&C to when you made the purchase...
>
> Unless you can answer the question highlighted above, and post details
> of what it is about the T&C you think they wish to change, then I don't
> think I can be any more help.
>
>> Similar to what most shops now try to do
>
> YMMV. I patronise hundreds of shops, and none has done this to me.

Happened to my teenager daughter twice last week (in clothes shops -
major chains).

[Ian Jackson]

In article <ojg4u7$fpj$1...@dont-email.me>,

Mike Scott <usen...@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
>I had strong words with my high street bank (nameless as this is ulm)
>who started sending me advertising junk. My online settings say "no
>emails"; the emails didn't have a displayed unsubscribe link. Oh, and
>no contact address either.

I have had success with letters before legal action, based on DPA/ECR
breaches. I L100 out of one big corporate, and two free tickets to a
big London exhition. A number of organisations fixed their shit
before I got as far as a paper letter.

My normal escalation approach:

1. Try unsubscribe link if one is provided (and assuming this
isn't a repeat offender).

(Lost count of number of times I have done this.)

If unsubscribe link is not provided, gives error, or
marketing carries on anyway:

2. Reply to provided email address mentioning DPA and
explicitly stating that the marketing mails must cease.

(Happens a few times a year, email is usually effective.)

If no address provided, or email bounces, or any more marketing
emails arrive:

3. Email threat of legal action to email addresses found on websites
etc.. Demand that marketing mails stop within 14 days. Warn
that if they don't I will take legal action without further
notice and that this will incur costs which I will recover from
the miscreants.

(I have done this about 6 times.)

Give them 14 days. If after that any marketing emails is
received:

4. Paper LBA demanding
- a stop to the marketing emails
- written confirmation from miscreant that they will stop
- L5 nominal compensation for distress (irritation)
- price of the stamp
and warning that if I need to issue proceedings because either
the marketing emails continue, or they didn't pay me, I will also
be demanding
- L50 exemplary damages
- court fees and costs

(I have done this twice.)

After this I won't stop unless the miscreants at least pay me,
and I will issue proceedings if more marketing emails arrive
(subject to attempts by the miscreants to negotiate).

(One of my opponents said they were very busy and would I please
wait an extra month to respond; after a month they wrote and
confirmed everything was fixed and offered me L100 to settle.

The other started to engage but then staff changed and they lost
the plot; a further paper letter got everything fixed, and a
settlement offer of free exhibition tickets worth about L30.)

5. Issue proceedings.

(Never got to this stage.)

>They just don't seem to care.
>You couldn't make it up.

The authorities won't enforce the law. But the County Court will help
you enforce it yourself.

--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:44:18 +0100, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> wrote:

>Well, I bought an item from, and received it.
>
>The email is not about recalls, makes no reference to the product I
>bought, and does not even mention me by name ("Dear Customer"...).
>
>Do these emails not supposed to have an easy opt out option?

Assuming that the zippyshare link previously posted is the correct
one, then it looks like a typical after-sales email, which they are
perfectly entitled to send as it is a transactional email sent in
direct connection with your purchase rather than a marketing email.

At least, they are entitled to send it once. If you are getting the
same email repeatedly, then something has gone wrong. That's why it
has no opt-out link, because, under normal circumstances, you would
never be sent it more than once anyway.

The best thing to do, therefore, is get in touch with them and tell
them that something appears to have gone wrong with their mail system.
When diagnosing such a problem, the headers of the email are far more
useful than the content. If you want, you can post them here (since
they will be plain text and hence not a problem for Usenet) and people
with relevent knowledge may be able to suggest where the problem lies.
Even if you would prefer not to do that (since they will reveal
personal data about you), you should make that available to the
customer service team when you email them to complain about getting
the emails repeatedly.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <w7SdnUCjR_jCAcbE...@brightview.co.uk>, at
14:47:08 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> remarked:

>>> I think they want to tempt you into giving your details again, but under
>>> different T&C to when you made the purchase...
>>
>> Unless you can answer the question highlighted above, and post details
>> of what it is about the T&C you think they wish to change, then I don't
>> think I can be any more help.
>>
>>> Similar to what most shops now try to do
>>
>> YMMV. I patronise hundreds of shops, and none has done this to me.
>
>Happened to my teenager daughter twice last week (in clothes shops -
>major chains).

What aspect of which T&C were they attempting to get your daughter to
agree to?

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <ojg4u7$fpj$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:28:11 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017,
Mike Scott <usen...@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> remarked:

>> it's true that if you are an individual they should provide a
>>'Simple Way' to opt out of the mailings now, even if they *are*
>>allowed to start sending them to customers after a purchase.
>> https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/marketing/
>
>That's a laugh.
>
>That link says
>".....are given a simple way to [unsubscribe] in future messages.
>
>When you send an electronic marketing message, you must tell the
>recipient who you are and provide a valid contact address."

That's the law. People break it. Film at 11.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <OpednYM577AGAMbE...@brightview.co.uk>, at
14:52:25 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> remarked:

>This is the message I received:
>
>http://assets.safety.currys.co.uk/q/12ECx5xEGOFkofcykLUP8fYP/wv

OK, so it *is* the safety message, and contrary to your previous
assertion is in fact to assist in managing the recall process.
--
Roland Perry

[JoeJoe]

No idea...

She bought some clothes from two shop and I bought cards from another In
all three cases after handing them my card/cash I/she was asked for our
email address so that they could send me the receipt electronically .
I/she declined, but it was as canny/dishonest an approach as it sounds.

[JoeJoe]

On 04/07/2017 16:00, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:44:18 +0100, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, I bought an item from, and received it.
>>
>> The email is not about recalls, makes no reference to the product I
>> bought, and does not even mention me by name ("Dear Customer"...).
>>
>> Do these emails not supposed to have an easy opt out option?
>
> Assuming that the zippyshare link previously posted is the correct
> one, then it looks like a typical after-sales email, which they are
> perfectly entitled to send as it is a transactional email sent in
> direct connection with your purchase rather than a marketing email.

The transaction took place 4 months ago.

[JoeJoe]

? They have all my details from when I placed the order.

[Roland Perry]

In message <tranlcdr0n6pot7vp...@4ax.com>, at 16:00:50 on Tue,
4 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

>When diagnosing such a problem, the headers of the email are far more
>useful than the content. If you want, you can post them here (since
>they will be plain text and hence not a problem for Usenet) and people
>with relevent knowledge may be able to suggest where the problem lies.

I've had the same email, have examined the headers, and the only useful thing
it reveals is that it's highly unlikely to be a phishing attempt.

Other than that, what enlightenment would you expect?

Oh perhaps, as suggested by someone, an unsubscribe link, which it has:

List-Unsubscribe:

<mailto:mail.**hashcode**@assets.safety.currys.co.uk?subject=Unsubscribe>

If the OP's mail client doesn't display that, then it's more his problem than
theirs, some might say.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <McydnaCi_6IaWcbE...@brightview.co.uk>, at
17:38:28 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> remarked:

>>> This is the message I received:
>>>
>>> http://assets.safety.currys.co.uk/q/12ECx5xEGOFkofcykLUP8fYP/wv
>> OK, so it *is* the safety message, and contrary to your previous
>>assertion is in fact to assist in managing the recall process.
>
>? They have all my details from when I placed the order.

They are just checking that should it be a relevant purchase you've
registered it with the manufacturer concerned.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <McydnaGi_6LFWcbE...@brightview.co.uk>, at
17:37:41 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> remarked:

>> Assuming that the zippyshare link previously posted is the correct
>> one, then it looks like a typical after-sales email, which they are
>> perfectly entitled to send as it is a transactional email sent in
>> direct connection with your purchase rather than a marketing email.
>
>The transaction took place 4 months ago.

There's no timeout on "being a customer". The thing I bought from PC
World was in 2014.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 17:37:41 +0100, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> wrote:

>On 04/07/2017 16:00, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:44:18 +0100, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I bought an item from, and received it.
>>>
>>> The email is not about recalls, makes no reference to the product I
>>> bought, and does not even mention me by name ("Dear Customer"...).
>>>
>>> Do these emails not supposed to have an easy opt out option?
>>
>> Assuming that the zippyshare link previously posted is the correct
>> one, then it looks like a typical after-sales email, which they are
>> perfectly entitled to send as it is a transactional email sent in
>> direct connection with your purchase rather than a marketing email.
>
>The transaction took place 4 months ago.

Which is even more evidence for something having gone wrong on their
system, since the content is clearly transactional rather than
marketing.

Mark

[Mike Scott]

On 04/07/17 18:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>...

> Oh perhaps, as suggested by someone, an unsubscribe link, which it has:
>
> List-Unsubscribe:
>
> <mailto:mail.**hashcode**@assets.safety.currys.co.uk?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> If the OP's mail client doesn't display that, then it's more his problem than
> theirs, some might say.
>

That was me :-}

I'd be more forgiving to the end user. I'm sure a minority know how to
access the full email headers (or use a client able to; or for that
matter even know they exist). And I'd suggest not all those would be
able to understand them well enough to for the relevant header.

[Roland Perry]

In message <ojglnl$fd9$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:14:49 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017,
Mike Scott <usen...@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> remarked:

>> If the OP's mail client doesn't display that, then it's more his
>>problem than theirs, some might say.
>
>That was me :-}
>
>I'd be more forgiving to the end user. I'm sure a minority know how to
>access the full email headers (or use a client able to; or for that
>matter even know they exist). And I'd suggest not all those would be
>able to understand them well enough to for the relevant header.

It's commonplace for people to choose to use email clients which fail to
present (censor, perhaps) all of the information which is associated
with emails they receive.

One that's quite different from the matters under discussion, but very
helpful to me working in an international space, is what the *local*
time was when someone sent an email.
--
Roland Perry

[Robin]

On 04/07/2017 18:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> Which is even more evidence for something having gone wrong on their
> system, since the content is clearly transactional rather than
> marketing.
>

Or just possibly on the OP's mail provider's system if it is sending a
bounce report back to Curry's each time, leading Curry's system to try
again.

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 20:34:34 +0100, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 04/07/2017 18:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>> Which is even more evidence for something having gone wrong on their
>> system, since the content is clearly transactional rather than
>> marketing.
>>
>
>Or just possibly on the OP's mail provider's system if it is sending a
>bounce report back to Curry's each time, leading Curry's system to try
>again.

Yes, but that's something that the web team at Curry's will be able to
diagnose. If they can be bothered, that is - they are more likely to
just set the email address as invalid and stop their system trying to
send to it.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 19:40:29 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <ojglnl$fd9$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:14:49 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017,
>Mike Scott <usen...@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> remarked:
>
>>> If the OP's mail client doesn't display that, then it's more his
>>>problem than theirs, some might say.
>>
>>That was me :-}
>>
>>I'd be more forgiving to the end user. I'm sure a minority know how to
>>access the full email headers (or use a client able to; or for that
>>matter even know they exist). And I'd suggest not all those would be
>>able to understand them well enough to for the relevant header.
>
>It's commonplace for people to choose to use email clients which fail to
>present (censor, perhaps) all of the information which is associated
>with emails they receive.

I'm not aware of any mail clients that make the headers impossible to
view, although most hide them by default and some have a rather
convoluted process for displaying them.

>One that's quite different from the matters under discussion, but very
>helpful to me working in an international space, is what the *local*
>time was when someone sent an email.

Yes, that can be quite crucial at times.

Mark

[Janet]

In article <ucGdnQjft5UT38bE...@brightview.co.uk>,
n...@mail.com says...

>
> On 03/07/2017 17:18, JoeJoe wrote:
> > Bought something from them a few months ago - order was placed online
> > and then product collected from a store.
> >
> > A few weeks ago I started to receive this email from them every couple
> > of days:
> > https://tinyurl.com/ya85tmot
> >
> > As you can from it, there is no option to be removed from their mailing
> > list or to stop receiving this junk mail.

Nothing if you click on the "privacy" link?

If not, there is an email address to contact them; have you tried
emailing to request removal of your details?

janet

[Roland Perry]

In message <dnsnlc1u8f2tqan20...@4ax.com>, at 20:57:36 on
Tue, 4 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 19:40:29 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <ojglnl$fd9$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:14:49 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017,
>>Mike Scott <usen...@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> remarked:
>>
>>>> If the OP's mail client doesn't display that, then it's more his
>>>>problem than theirs, some might say.
>>>
>>>That was me :-}
>>>
>>>I'd be more forgiving to the end user. I'm sure a minority know how to
>>>access the full email headers (or use a client able to; or for that
>>>matter even know they exist). And I'd suggest not all those would be
>>>able to understand them well enough to for the relevant header.
>>
>>It's commonplace for people to choose to use email clients which fail to
>>present (censor, perhaps) all of the information which is associated
>>with emails they receive.
>
>I'm not aware of any mail clients that make the headers impossible to
>view,

Try many versions of the gmail android app, which has to be one of the
most widely used clients in the world.

>although most hide them by default and some have a rather
>convoluted process for displaying them.

There are mumerous online support forums which claim to have a magic
spell for the gmail app, but that only works on a subset. Speaking as
someone who has tried to keep "getsafe" type advice up do date for
mobile platforms (including iphone too), it's a complete nightmare
because several of the menu workflows and options will change more than
once a year.

About the only thing you can guarantee is that anything you read online
(or have researched and written up yourself) probably *won't* work
exactly as described any more!

I've given up (writing that kind of advice) now, and consigned my
collection of a dozen or so different phones with different OS versions
to a drawer.

[My day to day phone is stuck on 4.4.2, having been launched weeks
before 5.0, and never been supplied with an update]

>>One that's quite different from the matters under discussion, but very
>>helpful to me working in an international space, is what the *local*
>>time was when someone sent an email.
>
>Yes, that can be quite crucial at times.
>
>Mark

--
Roland Perry

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 11:11:06 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <v-idnU6ft-jo_sbE...@brightview.co.uk>, at

> 10:44:18 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> remarked:

>
> >The email is not about recalls,
>

> Interestingly, it appears that I got one of "these?" emails on the 1st
> July. It says
>
> "Subject: How to register your electrical goods
>
> To keep you up to date on the latest safety advice... etc etc"

Yes this it the one I got.

>
> Perhaps you could post the plain text of the first couple of sentences
> of yours, here. Or maybe it has he same T&C near the bottom:

>
> "Terms and conditions
>
> This email was sent to you because you gave us your email address when
> youbought a product from DSG Retail Limited (Currys, PC World, Dixons
> Travel and Currys PC World Business) and we think it's important to get
> this safety related message to you."
>

> >makes no reference to the product I bought, and does not even mention
> >me by name ("Dear Customer"...).
>

> Ditto x2, and also it's a bit too easy to say "but I've never bought
> anything off Currys" when in fact it's from group HQ which is called
> "Currys PC World", this week.
>
> I ought something from PC World a couple of years ago (software).

I have bought more than one thing off Currys PC World and a phone of CFW, which is now part of the group - so no surprise there.

>
> >Do these emails not supposed to have an easy opt out option?
>

> I'm inclined to think this email is a post-Grenfell knee-jerk reaction
> to the fact that should some white goods turn out to need a recall, they
> can say they've done their best to keep in touch with their customers.

Sounds about right - the fire allegedly started when newish fridge leaked iso-pentane refrigerant and it ignited violently. If it were sold by Curry's they could be in the firing line for liability running into tens of millions.

>
> To that extent (and if they only send it once) it's potentially in the
> public interest for them to be able to send it.
>
> For a definitive answer I suggest someone calls the ICO and asks for
> their opinion.

> --
> Roland Perryv

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 13:54:41 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <y9SdnVnZQqJD58bE...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 12:24:11 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> remarked:

SNIP

> >
> >The only thing I have even bought from them online was a Logitech wired
> >USB keyboard (was a couple of £ cheaper than Amazon...) 3-4 months ago...
> >
> >I think they want to tempt you into giving your details again, but under
> >different T&C to when you made the purchase...
>
> Unless you can answer the question highlighted above, and post details
> of what it is about the T&C you think they wish to change, then I don't
> think I can be any more help.
>
> >Similar to what most shops now try to do
>
> YMMV. I patronise hundreds of shops, and none has done this to me.
>
> > - I bought a couple of birthday cards on the High St
> >the other day and was asked to give them my email address so that they
> >could email me the receipt (the one that was already in my hand...)

Actually Screwfix do this and it is tremendously convenient if you need to claim back the cost from someone or included it in an invoice.

>
> --
> Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 09:16:09 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>

wrote:

>In message <dnsnlc1u8f2tqan20...@4ax.com>, at 20:57:36 on
>Tue, 4 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>>On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 19:40:29 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <ojglnl$fd9$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:14:49 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017,
>>>Mike Scott <usen...@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> If the OP's mail client doesn't display that, then it's more his
>>>>>problem than theirs, some might say.
>>>>
>>>>That was me :-}
>>>>
>>>>I'd be more forgiving to the end user. I'm sure a minority know how to
>>>>access the full email headers (or use a client able to; or for that
>>>>matter even know they exist). And I'd suggest not all those would be
>>>>able to understand them well enough to for the relevant header.
>>>
>>>It's commonplace for people to choose to use email clients which fail to
>>>present (censor, perhaps) all of the information which is associated
>>>with emails they receive.
>>
>>I'm not aware of any mail clients that make the headers impossible to
>>view,
>
>Try many versions of the gmail android app, which has to be one of the
>most widely used clients in the world.

I suppose that mobile apps have the excuse that they are deliberately
cut-down versions for compactness. But if you have Gmail, you can
always inspect the full headers via the web client. And you can get at
the web client on an smartphone, it isn't compulsory to use the app.

In fact, if you want to be pedantic, you could argue that the Gmail
client *is* the web client; the app is just a reader applied over the
top of that. Certainly, if I send my Gmail account an email and then
reply to it from both the web client and the Android app, the headers
(other than Message-ID, date/time and other message-specific headers)
are identical - the work is being done server-side, not by the app. So
you could argue that Gmail always gives you the option to view the
headers, it's just that the hoop you need to jump through is to use
the full-featured interface rather than the deliberately cut-down one.

>>although most hide them by default and some have a rather
>>convoluted process for displaying them.
>
>There are mumerous online support forums which claim to have a magic
>spell for the gmail app, but that only works on a subset. Speaking as
>someone who has tried to keep "getsafe" type advice up do date for
>mobile platforms (including iphone too), it's a complete nightmare
>because several of the menu workflows and options will change more than
>once a year.

It hadn't actually occurred to me until just now (and verified by
testing it) that a huge weakness in the Gmail Android app is that it
doesn't provide you with any of the clues that the web app helpfully
gives you when a message contains a potentially falsified "From:" line
or a dodgy link. That's most definitely not a good thing.

>About the only thing you can guarantee is that anything you read online
>(or have researched and written up yourself) probably *won't* work
>exactly as described any more!

Even much official documentation doesn't keep up with version changes,
particularly on apps.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <fbdb5f88-bff4-4464...@googlegroups.com>, at
02:33:43 on Wed, 5 Jul 2017, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com>
remarked:

>> Unless you can answer the question highlighted above, and post details
>> of what it is about the T&C you think they wish to change, then I don't
>> think I can be any more help.
>>
>> >Similar to what most shops now try to do
>>
>> YMMV. I patronise hundreds of shops, and none has done this to me.
>>
>> > - I bought a couple of birthday cards on the High St
>> >the other day and was asked to give them my email address so that they
>> >could email me the receipt (the one that was already in my hand...)
>
>Actually Screwfix do this and it is tremendously convenient if you need
>to claim back the cost from someone or included it in an invoice.

Screwfix email me invoices, but not because they asked me for my email
address in the shop (it has been on record with them a long time), and I
don't see any suggestion that by emailing me an invoice they are trying
to change the T&C pertaining to the purchase.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <8fe4d8bb-3321-409d...@googlegroups.com>, at
02:31:24 on Wed, 5 Jul 2017, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com>
remarked:

>> I'm inclined to think this email is a post-Grenfell knee-jerk reaction
>> to the fact that should some white goods turn out to need a recall, they
>> can say they've done their best to keep in touch with their customers.
>
>Sounds about right - the fire allegedly started when newish

Most likely ten years old, that model was discontinued in 2009.

>fridge leaked iso-pentane refrigerant and it ignited violently.

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <9mbplcdqf8mk1n7se...@4ax.com>, at 10:42:16 on
Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>>>>>> If the OP's mail client doesn't display that, then it's more his
>>>>>>problem than theirs, some might say.
>>>>>
>>>>>That was me :-}
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd be more forgiving to the end user. I'm sure a minority know how to
>>>>>access the full email headers (or use a client able to; or for that
>>>>>matter even know they exist). And I'd suggest not all those would be
>>>>>able to understand them well enough to for the relevant header.
>>>>
>>>>It's commonplace for people to choose to use email clients which fail to
>>>>present (censor, perhaps) all of the information which is associated
>>>>with emails they receive.
>>>
>>>I'm not aware of any mail clients that make the headers impossible to
>>>view,
>>
>>Try many versions of the gmail android app, which has to be one of the
>>most widely used clients in the world.
>
>I suppose that mobile apps have the excuse that they are deliberately
>cut-down versions for compactness.

That doesn't fly, when some versions do have an extra option for looking
at headers. Anyway, it's the screen size that's smaller, it doesn't
automatically follow that the functionality has to be crippled.

>But if you have Gmail, you can
>always inspect the full headers via the web client. And you can get at
>the web client on an smartphone, it isn't compulsory to use the app.

I've seen that special pleading wheeled out before, but it's wafer thin.

--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 11:25:07 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

There are two separate issues here.

One is the fact that the apps don't offer as much protection against
fraud and phishing as desktop and web clients. I don't think the
excuse that people have other alternatives is an excuse as far as the
app providers are concerned. Ihe apps should provide the same level of
protection, including the provision of relevent information, as you
would get on the desktop or web.

The other is the user, who already knows (or believes) there is
something dodgy about a particular email, complaining that the app
doesn't give them sufficient diagnostic information. In that case, it
is reasonable to expect them to use a more full-featured version of
the client which does provide the information.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <jpgplcdi6hjoubbe1...@4ax.com>, at 11:51:40 on

Both of which are new to the thread.

>One is the fact that the apps don't offer as much protection against
>fraud and phishing as desktop and web clients. I don't think the
>excuse that people have other alternatives is an excuse as far as the
>app providers are concerned. Ihe apps should provide the same level of
>protection, including the provision of relevent information, as you
>would get on the desktop or web.
>
>The other is the user, who already knows (or believes) there is
>something dodgy about a particular email, complaining that the app
>doesn't give them sufficient diagnostic information. In that case, it
>is reasonable to expect them to use a more full-featured version of
>the client which does provide the information.

The specific issue revolves around the usability of a List-Unsubscribe:
header when the email client by default never exposes the recipients to
any headers, they probably don't even know headers exist, let alone that
there might be a header type called List-Unsubscribe:

The practical solution would be for the email client to scrape that
particular header (and maybe a few others which might have special
significance in a minority of special cases) and present an
"Unsubscribe" option to the recipient adjacent perhaps to the "reply"
icon.

Taking it further, they might also parse standard disclaimers that an
email is un-replyable-to, and omit to show the "Reply" icon on the
grounds that it's futile. You could kill two birds with one stone by
replacing the reply icon with anew one, whose meaning was "the sender
has their fingers in their ears, but clicking this may make them stop
sending you emails like this".

Maybe I should file a patent application (yes I know, I've let the cat
out of the bag now).
--
Roland Perry

[JoeJoe]

Thanks for that.

Clicking Privacy takes you a web page with their privacy policy.

I can email or even phone them to ask to be removed, was just wondering
if they were allowed to omit the removal option from their communication.

[JoeJoe]

On 05/07/2017 10:33, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 13:54:41 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <y9SdnVnZQqJD58bE...@brightview.co.uk>, at
>> 12:24:11 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> remarked:
> SNIP
>
>>>
>>> The only thing I have even bought from them online was a Logitech wired

>>> USB keyboard (was a couple of £ cheaper than Amazon...) 3-4 months ago...

>>>
>>> I think they want to tempt you into giving your details again, but under
>>> different T&C to when you made the purchase...
>>
>> Unless you can answer the question highlighted above, and post details
>> of what it is about the T&C you think they wish to change, then I don't
>> think I can be any more help.
>>
>>> Similar to what most shops now try to do
>>
>> YMMV. I patronise hundreds of shops, and none has done this to me.
>>
>>> - I bought a couple of birthday cards on the High St
>>> the other day and was asked to give them my email address so that they
>>> could email me the receipt (the one that was already in my hand...)
>
> Actually Screwfix do this and it is tremendously convenient if you need to claim back the cost from someone or included it in an invoice.

Agreed. Screwfix is the only company I allow to do that as I need the
receipt for tax purposes.

[Roland Perry]

In message <3oadnakIM9UyqMDE...@brightview.co.uk>, at
19:53:31 on Wed, 5 Jul 2017, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> remarked:

>>>> Bought something from them a few months ago - order was placed online
>>>> and then product collected from a store.
>>>>
>>>> A few weeks ago I started to receive this email from them every couple
>>>> of days:
>>>> https://tinyurl.com/ya85tmot
>>>>
>>>> As you can from it, there is no option to be removed from their mailing
>>>> list or to stop receiving this junk mail.
>> Nothing if you click on the "privacy" link?
>> If not, there is an email address to contact them; have you
>>tried
>> emailing to request removal of your details?
>

>Thanks for that.
>
>Clicking Privacy takes you a web page with their privacy policy.
>
>I can email or even phone them to ask to be removed, was just wondering
>if they were allowed to omit the removal option from their
>communication.

We haven't yet established whether the email qualifies as one which
requires an opt-out (it's safety not marketing) but we *have*
established that there *is* an opt-out link, albeit one that many email
clients will struggle to show the user.
--
Roland Perry

[JoeJoe]

Can't see the link between the two...

The email I received from Currys was generic, did not refer to me by
name or to any product that I had bought from them.

They already have both my details and the list of products I bought from
them on record, so why do they need me to register anything?

[Roland Perry]

In message <rJSdneaq9oP9psDE...@brightview.co.uk>, at
20:17:47 on Wed, 5 Jul 2017, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> remarked:

>On 05/07/2017 11:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <fbdb5f88-bff4-4464...@googlegroups.com>,
>>at 02:33:43 on Wed, 5 Jul 2017, R. Mark Clayton
>><notya...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Unless you can answer the question highlighted above, and post details
>>>> of what it is about the T&C you think they wish to change, then I don't
>>>> think I can be any more help.
>>>>
>>>> >Similar to what most shops now try to do
>>>>
>>>> YMMV. I patronise hundreds of shops, and none has done this to me.
>>>>
>>>> > - I bought a couple of birthday cards on the High St
>>>> >the other day and was asked to give them my email address so that they
>>>> >could email me the receipt (the one that was already in my hand...)
>>>
>>> Actually Screwfix do this and it is tremendously convenient if you need
>>> to claim back the cost from someone or included it in an invoice.
>> Screwfix email me invoices, but not because they asked me for my
>>email address in the shop (it has been on record with them a long
>>time), and I don't see any suggestion that by emailing me an invoice
>>they are trying to change the T&C pertaining to the purchase.
>
>Can't see the link between the two...

It was your suggestion:

"I think they want to tempt you into giving your details again,
but under different T&C to when you made the purchase..."

>The email I received from Currys was generic, did not refer to me by
>name or to any product that I had bought from them.
>
>They already have both my details and the list of products I bought
>from them on record, so why do they need me to register anything?

In case you've moved house since buying it.
--
Roland Perry

[JoeJoe]

If you mean the one within the header then I am sure it does not qualify
under current legislation.

[Roland Perry]

In message <5smdndBnTfDf_sDE...@brightview.co.uk>, at
23:07:57 on Wed, 5 Jul 2017, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> remarked:

>>> I can email or even phone them to ask to be removed, was just
>>>wondering if they were allowed to omit the removal option from their
>>>communication.
>> We haven't yet established whether the email qualifies as one which
>>requires an opt-out (it's safety not marketing) but we *have*
>>established that there *is* an opt-out link, albeit one that many
>>email clients will struggle to show the user.
>
>If you mean the one within the header then I am sure it does not
>qualify under current legislation.

The legislation simply says that an easy means to unsubscribe must be
provided and the guidance specifically mentions a url as being a typical
compliant method.

There's a general understanding in telecoms regulation that technology
neutrality reigns supreme, so I don't think which line of the email the
url is on, is going to matter.

If you choose to read the email on a device which only shows you part of
the email by default, that's your problem.

I also use a client which only shows me part of emails which are
received, although in my case it's *with* the headers, and *without* any
HTML or other non-plain-text part.

And in the case of emails like the one from Currys, only a plain text
url for what they quaintly call the "Online version".

--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 09:13:02 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <5smdndBnTfDf_sDE...@brightview.co.uk>, at
>23:07:57 on Wed, 5 Jul 2017, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> remarked:
>
>>>> I can email or even phone them to ask to be removed, was just
>>>>wondering if they were allowed to omit the removal option from their
>>>>communication.
>>> We haven't yet established whether the email qualifies as one which
>>>requires an opt-out (it's safety not marketing) but we *have*
>>>established that there *is* an opt-out link, albeit one that many
>>>email clients will struggle to show the user.
>>
>>If you mean the one within the header then I am sure it does not
>>qualify under current legislation.
>
>The legislation simply says that an easy means to unsubscribe must be
>provided and the guidance specifically mentions a url as being a typical
>compliant method.
>
>There's a general understanding in telecoms regulation that technology
>neutrality reigns supreme, so I don't think which line of the email the
>url is on, is going to matter.

There is, however, a legal principle that headers are meta-data and
the body is content. Hence why it's OK (where appropriate) to store
who an email is from and to, but not what it contains. Even though,
technically, the only difference is the presence of \n\r\n\r btween
two blocks of text.

Also, although the legislation doesn't explicitly state it, I suspect
that a court would agree with the assertion that "a simple means" of
unsubscribing has to be visible to the recipient. So you can't, for
example, put a link in 1 point white text on a white background. And I
think that putting it in the headers, where an ordinary (aka
non-technical) user would not normally be expected to be aware of it,
would not count either.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <lkvslct80lh8m509v...@4ax.com>, at 20:25:19 on
Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>

remarked:

>>>>> I can email or even phone them to ask to be removed, was just
>>>>>wondering if they were allowed to omit the removal option from their
>>>>>communication.
>>>> We haven't yet established whether the email qualifies as one which
>>>>requires an opt-out (it's safety not marketing) but we *have*
>>>>established that there *is* an opt-out link, albeit one that many
>>>>email clients will struggle to show the user.
>>>
>>>If you mean the one within the header then I am sure it does not
>>>qualify under current legislation.
>>
>>The legislation simply says that an easy means to unsubscribe must be
>>provided and the guidance specifically mentions a url as being a typical
>>compliant method.
>>
>>There's a general understanding in telecoms regulation that technology
>>neutrality reigns supreme, so I don't think which line of the email the
>>url is on, is going to matter.
>
>There is, however, a legal principle that headers are meta-data and
>the body is content.

Where does that legal principle rise, certainly not from an
Investigatory Powers law, whose definitions wouldn't apply to an
ecommerce regulation anyway (unless specifically cited).

>Hence why it's OK (where appropriate) to store who an email is from and
>to, but not what it contains.

OK under what legislation? Are you claiming DPA, or something else.

>Even though, technically, the only difference is the presence of
>\n\r\n\r btween two blocks of text.

If you are harking back to Investigative Powers law, the difference
between traffic data and content is much more subtle than that. And the
unequivocal expression of the previous working practice is nailed onto
the face of the IP Act.

>Also, although the legislation doesn't explicitly state it, I suspect
>that a court would agree with the assertion that "a simple means" of
>unsubscribing has to be visible to the recipient.

Do you mean "simple to view"? (Click "expose headers" if your reader has
that functionality.) Or are you conflating it with some ill-defined
concept of "easy to view with the default settings of every conceivable
email client"?

>So you can't, for example, put a link in 1 point white text on a white
>background. And I think that putting it in the headers, where an
>ordinary (aka non-technical) user would not normally be expected to be
>aware of it, would not count either.

It doesn't have to be a link, either, it just has to be notification of
an "easy means". Thus "Text STOP to 60036" in an SMS would suffice, you
don't have to pre-load the SMS with a reply-to 60036 prefilled with
"STOP".

Nor does the instruction have to be visible on the phone's screen by
default - rather than the user having to open the SMS in full in order
to see more than the first few words.
--
Roland Perry

[Graham Murray]

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes:

> Also, although the legislation doesn't explicitly state it, I suspect
> that a court would agree with the assertion that "a simple means" of
> unsubscribing has to be visible to the recipient. So you can't, for
> example, put a link in 1 point white text on a white background. And I
> think that putting it in the headers, where an ordinary (aka
> non-technical) user would not normally be expected to be aware of it,
> would not count either.

Yet, for email, the standards track RFC 2369 defines a
'List-Unsubscribe' header which mail programs can[1] use to present an
'unsubscribe button (or menu option) to the user, which will
automatically take the appropriate action to unsubscribe the user from
the mailing list.

[1] Both the email programs I use at hone and at work offer this option.

[Mark Goodge]

To put it simply, the law does not recognise the validity (or possibly
even the existence) of Internet standards or standard technical
facilities. For example, all browsers in common use have the ability
to control cookies. And yet we still have the absurdity of the EU
cookie directive.

In any case, in reality, a large number of email clients in common use
don't actually implement an RFC 2369 unsubscribe system. So it would
not normally be considered acceptable to rely on it.

>[1] Both the email programs I use at hone and at work offer this option.

Which are those?

Mark

[Ian Jackson]

In article <ff0vlclds7rah40e1...@4ax.com>,

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>To put it simply, the law does not recognise the validity (or possibly
>even the existence) of Internet standards or standard technical
>facilities. For example, all browsers in common use have the ability
>to control cookies. And yet we still have the absurdity of the EU
>cookie directive.

The EU cookie directive is not absurd. The way it has been unlawfully
watered down (in response to protestations from the very people whose
activities it was intended to stop0 has led to absurd results.

--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

[Roland Perry]

In message <ff0vlclds7rah40e1...@4ax.com>, at 13:49:43 on
Fri, 7 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>On Fri, 07 Jul 2017 11:56:36 +0100, Graham Murray
><news...@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Also, although the legislation doesn't explicitly state it, I suspect
>>> that a court would agree with the assertion that "a simple means" of
>>> unsubscribing has to be visible to the recipient. So you can't, for
>>> example, put a link in 1 point white text on a white background. And I
>>> think that putting it in the headers, where an ordinary (aka
>>> non-technical) user would not normally be expected to be aware of it,
>>> would not count either.
>>
>>Yet, for email, the standards track RFC 2369 defines a
>>'List-Unsubscribe' header which mail programs can[1] use to present an
>>'unsubscribe button (or menu option) to the user, which will
>>automatically take the appropriate action to unsubscribe the user from
>>the mailing list.
>
>To put it simply, the law does not recognise the validity (or possibly
>even the existence) of Internet standards or standard technical
>facilities.

What law(s)? Although it's a trick question because rfcs are
overwhelmingly suggestions for standards, rather than actual standards.
This is a very sore point with the IETF, and their sponsors ISOC, who
have genuine issues with ever being regarded as a standards body in US
law.

>For example, all browsers in common use have the ability
>to control cookies. And yet we still have the absurdity of the EU
>cookie directive.

That's rather different, because the real risk is with malign cookies
and the law is about (admittedly self-) certifying you don't deploy any.
But the whole panoply of DPA notification (nee registration) is a
self-certifying regime.

On balance the Cookie law raises the public profile of cookies (which
most users probably had never heard of before) and encourages them to
make informed decisions about their browser settings.

>In any case, in reality, a large number of email clients in common use
>don't actually implement an RFC 2369 unsubscribe system. So it would
>not normally be considered acceptable to rely on it.
>
>>[1] Both the email programs I use at hone and at work offer this option.
>
>Which are those?
>
>Mark

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <p1p*Wk...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:21:07 on Fri,
7 Jul 2017, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:

>>To put it simply, the law does not recognise the validity (or possibly
>>even the existence) of Internet standards or standard technical
>>facilities. For example, all browsers in common use have the ability
>>to control cookies. And yet we still have the absurdity of the EU
>>cookie directive.
>
>The EU cookie directive is not absurd. The way it has been unlawfully
>watered down (in response to protestations from the very people whose
>activities it was intended to stop0 has led to absurd results.

Can you give at least one example of the way it's been watered down
since the original final proposal from the deprecated unelected Brussels
bureaucrats' original proposal, or even from what's in the Directive,
when transposed to the UK?

Do you think even the allegedly watered-down rule will survive Brexit.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 14:49:59 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <ff0vlclds7rah40e1...@4ax.com>, at 13:49:43 on
>Fri, 7 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>>On Fri, 07 Jul 2017 11:56:36 +0100, Graham Murray
>><news...@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> Also, although the legislation doesn't explicitly state it, I suspect
>>>> that a court would agree with the assertion that "a simple means" of
>>>> unsubscribing has to be visible to the recipient. So you can't, for
>>>> example, put a link in 1 point white text on a white background. And I
>>>> think that putting it in the headers, where an ordinary (aka
>>>> non-technical) user would not normally be expected to be aware of it,
>>>> would not count either.
>>>
>>>Yet, for email, the standards track RFC 2369 defines a
>>>'List-Unsubscribe' header which mail programs can[1] use to present an
>>>'unsubscribe button (or menu option) to the user, which will
>>>automatically take the appropriate action to unsubscribe the user from
>>>the mailing list.
>>
>>To put it simply, the law does not recognise the validity (or possibly
>>even the existence) of Internet standards or standard technical
>>facilities.
>
>What law(s)?

As far as I'm aware, no laws recognise the validity of Internet
standards or standard technical facilities. I'm willing to be
corrected, if you can point me to any that do.

> Although it's a trick question because rfcs are
>overwhelmingly suggestions for standards, rather than actual standards.
>This is a very sore point with the IETF, and their sponsors ISOC, who
>have genuine issues with ever being regarded as a standards body in US
>law.
>
>>For example, all browsers in common use have the ability
>>to control cookies. And yet we still have the absurdity of the EU
>>cookie directive.
>
>That's rather different, because the real risk is with malign cookies
>and the law is about (admittedly self-) certifying you don't deploy any.
>But the whole panoply of DPA notification (nee registration) is a
>self-certifying regime.
>
>On balance the Cookie law raises the public profile of cookies (which
>most users probably had never heard of before) and encourages them to
>make informed decisions about their browser settings.

In reality, what it's encouraging people to do is automatically click
"close" or "I agree" on notification popups without bothering to read
them. Which is not really a good thing.

Mark

[Graham Murray]

gnus and evolution

[Roger Hayter]

I suppose I may be a victim of poor journalism but when the directive
was being discussed I got the impression that all web sites would have
to offer a meaningful choice of what types of cookie and who had access
to them, and that the web site would have to continue to offer a service
whatever choice was made. Neither of those turn out to be true, the
present situaltion is indistinguishable from that before the directve
except that each website requires you to accept cookies if you want to
use it but gives a rather inexplicit explanation of them if you can be
bothered to read it.


--

Roger Hayter

[Andy Burns]

Roland Perry wrote:

> Ian Jackson remarked:

>
>> The EU cookie directive is not absurd.
>

> Do you think even the allegedly watered-down rule will survive Brexit.

I would like a (default off) setting in browsers, that indicates the
users knows all about cookies, has set their own rules for what cookies
are accepted and for how long, and never ever wishes to see a cookie
warning dialogue ever again ...

No, I don't expect to get what I want.

[Roland Perry]

In message <dorvlc1ahehno11kl...@4ax.com>, at 21:32:56 on

Fri, 7 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>>>>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Also, although the legislation doesn't explicitly state it, I suspect
>>>>> that a court would agree with the assertion that "a simple means" of
>>>>> unsubscribing has to be visible to the recipient. So you can't, for
>>>>> example, put a link in 1 point white text on a white background. And I
>>>>> think that putting it in the headers, where an ordinary (aka
>>>>> non-technical) user would not normally be expected to be aware of it,
>>>>> would not count either.
>>>>
>>>>Yet, for email, the standards track RFC 2369 defines a
>>>>'List-Unsubscribe' header which mail programs can[1] use to present an
>>>>'unsubscribe button (or menu option) to the user, which will
>>>>automatically take the appropriate action to unsubscribe the user from
>>>>the mailing list.
>>>
>>>To put it simply, the law does not recognise the validity (or possibly
>>>even the existence) of Internet standards or standard technical
>>>facilities.
>>
>>What law(s)?
>
>As far as I'm aware, no laws recognise the validity of Internet
>standards or standard technical facilities.

What I mean is "which law, in this instance, would such a recognition
have to be in?".

>I'm willing to be corrected, if you can point me to any that do.

There's bound to be a few in the area of assuring QOS and
interoperability under the Framework Directives which even if a standard
isn't named will rely on adjudicating against an ETSI or ITU standard.

Then there's the steady leakage of terms like Web-page and IP-Address
into legislation, which if we can extend he concept of "normal
dictionary English" a little, must surely mean "whatever the relevant
rfc says".

However a very specific example of a reference to standards in the
Internet space is Article 13.1(c) of the Copyright Directive [which
paragraph I negotiated and drafted with my own fair hand]:

{on condition that} the provider complies with rules regarding the
updating of the information, specified in a manner widely recognised
and used by industry.

Which is code for "whatever the contemporary standard is for [marking a
page as do-not-cache]"

>> Although it's a trick question because rfcs are
>>overwhelmingly suggestions for standards, rather than actual standards.
>>This is a very sore point with the IETF, and their sponsors ISOC, who
>>have genuine issues with ever being regarded as a standards body in US
>>law.
>>
>>>For example, all browsers in common use have the ability
>>>to control cookies. And yet we still have the absurdity of the EU
>>>cookie directive.
>>
>>That's rather different, because the real risk is with malign cookies
>>and the law is about (admittedly self-) certifying you don't deploy any.
>>But the whole panoply of DPA notification (nee registration) is a
>>self-certifying regime.
>>
>>On balance the Cookie law raises the public profile of cookies (which
>>most users probably had never heard of before) and encourages them to
>>make informed decisions about their browser settings.
>
>In reality, what it's encouraging people to do is automatically click
>"close" or "I agree" on notification popups without bothering to read
>them. Which is not really a good thing.

But at least they now know the basic fact that cookies exist, which is
half the battle.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 06:26:14 +0100, Graham Murray

Neither, it has to be said, are among the most commonly used email
clients.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 09:21:18 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <dorvlc1ahehno11kl...@4ax.com>, at 21:32:56 on
>Fri, 7 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>
>>>>>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, although the legislation doesn't explicitly state it, I suspect
>>>>>> that a court would agree with the assertion that "a simple means" of
>>>>>> unsubscribing has to be visible to the recipient. So you can't, for
>>>>>> example, put a link in 1 point white text on a white background. And I
>>>>>> think that putting it in the headers, where an ordinary (aka
>>>>>> non-technical) user would not normally be expected to be aware of it,
>>>>>> would not count either.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yet, for email, the standards track RFC 2369 defines a
>>>>>'List-Unsubscribe' header which mail programs can[1] use to present an
>>>>>'unsubscribe button (or menu option) to the user, which will
>>>>>automatically take the appropriate action to unsubscribe the user from
>>>>>the mailing list.
>>>>
>>>>To put it simply, the law does not recognise the validity (or possibly
>>>>even the existence) of Internet standards or standard technical
>>>>facilities.
>>>
>>>What law(s)?
>>
>>As far as I'm aware, no laws recognise the validity of Internet
>>standards or standard technical facilities.
>
>What I mean is "which law, in this instance, would such a recognition
>have to be in?".

The law mandating an unsubscribe link in every marketing email.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 08:30:18 +0100, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

Default off wouldn't work, because, whether we like it or not, cookies
have become both ubiquitous and necessary for a very large number of
websites - session cookies are a much more useful means of handling
logins than http basic auth, for example, and are pretty much
essential in ecommerce applications. But it would help for cookie
handling to be more up front in browser options. Chrome, for example,
not only hides them under the "advanced" dialog but also makes them
two further clicks away from that.

Mark

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0nL4GqRH...@perry.co.uk...

I thought the EU were revisiting this anyway, as they have realised that,
whatever the rights and wrongs of the rule, the implantation has been a
disaster.

tim


> --
> Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <1n8texs.1qx93vwc3z0u8N%ro...@hayter.org>, at 08:20:05 on
Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <p1p*Wk...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:21:07 on Fri,
>> 7 Jul 2017, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>
>> >>To put it simply, the law does not recognise the validity (or possibly
>> >>even the existence) of Internet standards or standard technical
>> >>facilities. For example, all browsers in common use have the ability
>> >>to control cookies. And yet we still have the absurdity of the EU
>> >>cookie directive.
>> >
>> >The EU cookie directive is not absurd. The way it has been unlawfully
>> >watered down (in response to protestations from the very people whose
>> >activities it was intended to stop0 has led to absurd results.
>>
>> Can you give at least one example of the way it's been watered down
>> since the original final proposal from the deprecated unelected Brussels
>> bureaucrats' original proposal, or even from what's in the Directive,
>> when transposed to the UK?
>>
>> Do you think even the allegedly watered-down rule will survive Brexit.
>
>I suppose I may be a victim of poor journalism but when the directive
>was being discussed I got the impression that all web sites would have
>to offer a meaningful choice of what types of cookie and who had access
>to them, and that the web site would have to continue to offer a service
>whatever choice was made. Neither of those turn out to be true,

There's a general rule that anything in the press while a Directive is
being discussed is shroud-waving from one or other set of lobbyists.
It's almost a truism, because journalists don't sit in Brussels
listening to the debates, or reading though thousands of pages of
arguments and counter-arguments. They just grab soundbites from Press
Releases.

The EU process almost always leads to very many compromises being made
at the end of the process (the mother of all coalitions), which people
who are not fond of intrusive red tape might actually applaud.

>the
>present situaltion is indistinguishable from that before the directve

It's not, because now the ordinary member of the public has actually
heard of cookies.

>except that each website requires you to accept cookies if you want to
>use it but gives a rather inexplicit explanation of them if you can be
>bothered to read it.

Just like their Privacy Policy or DPA notification.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <esbg0a...@mid.individual.net>, at 08:30:18 on Sat, 8 Jul
2017, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> remarked:

There's certainly some mileage in having a cookie which says "no more
cookie warnings". Wasn't there once a proposal a bit like that which was
"I opt into everything Phorm wants to know, because I'm fed up with
constantly being asked about it".
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <ojq9af$toh$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:32 on Sat, 8 Jul 2017,
tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>>>The EU cookie directive is not absurd. The way it has been unlawfully
>>>watered down (in response to protestations from the very people whose
>>>activities it was intended to stop0 has led to absurd results.
>>
>> Can you give at least one example of the way it's been watered down
>>since the original final proposal from the deprecated unelected
>>Brussels bureaucrats' original proposal, or even from what's in the
>>Directive, when transposed to the UK?
>>
>> Do you think even the allegedly watered-down rule will survive Brexit.
>
>I thought the EU were revisiting this anyway, as they have realised
>that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the rule, the implantation has
>been a disaster.

Unlike Westminster, Brussels periodically revisits legislation
(especially those with technology sensitivities) to examine how they've
worked out and what needs to be improved.

Having been through the mill with Data Protection, leading to the GDPR,
they are now looking at ePrivacy.

http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=41299

"The evaluation also found that the application of the consent
rules on the confidentiality of terminal equipment, often
referred to as the "cookie rule" and aimed at empowering
individuals, has not been fully effective. Citizens are
presented with requests to accept tracking cookies without
understanding their meaning because of complex language and in
some cases, are even exposed to cookies being set without their
consent. Furthermore, the consent rule has been assessed as
being over-inclusive, as it also applies to non-privacy
intrusive practices such as first party analytic cookies, and
under-inclusive, as it does not clearly cover some tracking
techniques (e.g. device fingerprinting) which may not entail
access/storage in the device."

Sounds very pro the anti-surveillance lobby, so could win quite a few
friends here.

Now is very much the time to join in making representations, and
without hesitation about Brexit because like GDPR whatever the outcome
of the "deal or no deal", we'll almost certainly have to fall in line if
we want to continue doing cross-border ecommerce with R27.

Full proposal and (very) draft regulation:

http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=41241
--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

I vaguely remember the Phorm scandal; as a matter of interest, is
there anything Phorm wanted to do that Facebook and Google don't now do
routinely?


--

Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

They already knew firms kept and used their data. Knowing they do it
with cookies doesn't add much. And I don't think the nature, purpose
and sheer scale of third party cookie activity has sunk in as a result
of the cookie warnings.

>
> >except that each website requires you to accept cookies if you want to
> >use it but gives a rather inexplicit explanation of them if you can be
> >bothered to read it.
>
> Just like their Privacy Policy or DPA notification.

Well quite so, but at least we don't have to click on those any time we
browse any part of the website. Nor do we usually have to accept them
in order to see any of their wares. The cookie 'warning' as currently
applied serves no useful purpose, is a nuisance, and may even be a false
reassurance that we "know about" cookies.





--

Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <1n8v5dp.1frwemirqc2z5N%ro...@hayter.org>, at 23:40:10 on
Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

All three (and others of that ilk) are trying to profile individuals by
their browsing behaviour [be that browsing just with in their own ambit
which include Google search results], but use different methods.

What was different about Phorm was that the activity was predicated upon
action by your connectivity provider (rather than a content provider)
which many argued was an illegal interception of communications.

The closest analogy to Phorm is Internet Connection Records of the sites
you browse to, but the data being available to the highest bidder rather
than highly regulated law enforcement.

Meanwhile, I see that the Sunday Express is leading with a story about
politicians being harassed on the hustings.

This is one of the examples I use when briefing MPs about the need to
beef up the law with regard to online harassment (of which s103 of the
Digital Economy Act is the first positive step the government has agreed
to on that long road) and during which sceptical MPs would argue "why
don't people simply stop using Facebook/Twitter if they are being
harassed online" at which point I'd ask if they'd ever considered that
abandoning their hustings campaign would be a good way to prevent any
abuse arising from that activity.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <76a1mctaq7rko1pe2...@4ax.com>, at 10:42:28 on
Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>>What I mean is "which law, in this instance, would such a recognition
>>have to be in?".
>
>The law mandating an unsubscribe link in every marketing email.

There is no such law. All the current law specifies is a "means". A
"link" is vastly too technology specific.

To go further and mandate rules for how the customers' terminal
equipment should interoperate with such a link would be both even more
oppressive, and unrepresentative of the philosophical framework within
such laws are drafted.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <1n8v51s.kfkzo5nubxeN%ro...@hayter.org>, at 23:40:09 on Sat,

8 Jul 2017, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

>> >the
>> >present situaltion is indistinguishable from that before the directve
>>
>> It's not, because now the ordinary member of the public has actually
>> heard of cookies.
>
>They already knew firms kept and used their data.

Not really. You must not project the technical savvy of the few
enthusiasts who post here as representing the man in the street.

As someone who has helped deliver training courses to professionals who
you'd think would have some idea about the extent of the issue, even
they usually have the most rudimentary comprehension of the subject.

It's even possible in 2017 for consumer programmes on the radio to run
as breaking news, stories about people getting different (usually
increasing) travel/ insurance quotes the more they visit a particular
comparison or buying site. Who'd a-thunk it!

>Knowing they do it with cookies doesn't add much. And I don't think
>the nature, purpose and sheer scale of third party cookie activity has
>sunk in as a result of the cookie warnings.

Hold on, do they know, or don't they? Suddenly the whole third party
cookie thing has escaped their notice. But that's better than being
unaware of cookies at all.

>> >except that each website requires you to accept cookies if you want to
>> >use it but gives a rather inexplicit explanation of them if you can be
>> >bothered to read it.
>>
>> Just like their Privacy Policy or DPA notification.
>
>Well quite so, but at least we don't have to click on those any time we
>browse any part of the website. Nor do we usually have to accept them
>in order to see any of their wares.

You don't have to accept the cookie warning to see the wares, you have
to accept the cookies the warning is purportedly about. But then some
sites run by non-law-abiding criminals stitch the users up with
malicious cookies. The number of such incidences that my own laptop's
anti-spyware is triggered by exceed the number of viruses found by
several orders of magnitude.

>The cookie 'warning' as currently
>applied serves no useful purpose, is a nuisance, and may even be a false
>reassurance that we "know about" cookies.

All of those are covered in the review I've cited, and yes, like almost
anything the implementation could have been (and some claim in fact is)
much lighter-touch than this bit of self-regulation already is.

The challenge is to find a way to deliver much *stiffer* regulation
without increasing the second element of the classic "no gain without
pain" within the user experience.

Any way, get yourself or a representative over to Brussels and see if
you can persuade the Young Turks (contrary to some reports, no
Octogenerains involved) trying to figure out what's best.
--
Roland Perry

[Mike Scott]

On 09/07/17 09:59, Roland Perry wrote:
...

>> The law mandating an unsubscribe link in every marketing email.
>
> There is no such law. All the current law specifies is a "means". A
> "link" is vastly too technology specific.

The ICO website
(https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-pecr/electronic-and-telephone-marketing/electronic-mail-marketing/)

says (to organizations):
"...you must not send electronic mail marketing to individuals, unless:

they have specifically consented to electronic mail from you; or
they are an existing customer who bought (or negotiated to buy) a
similar product or service from you in the past, and you gave them a
simple way to opt out both when you first collected their details and in
every message you have sent.

You must not disguise or conceal your identity, and you must provide a
valid contact address so they can opt out or unsubscribe."

Seems clear enough me me.

In the case of my own bank, a hidden email header would not, I believe,
be describable as "simple". And they didn't provide a contact address to
opt out. Nor did I ever give permission. Nor would the branch sort out
the issue. Fail on all significant counts.

That page refers to "regulation 22", btw. I'm not sure where to look for
that :-(




--
Mike Scott (unet2 <at> [deletethis] scottsonline.org.uk)
Harlow Essex
"The only way is Brexit" -- anon.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 23:40:10 +0100, ro...@hayter.org (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

Yes; it used deep packet inspection to sniff traffic to every site
visited by a user rather than merely those where the site operator had
installed the necessary tracking beacons.

That's a crucial difference, because while there are many sites out
there that do have FB tracking beacons installed and/or use Google
analytics, there are also many that explicitly choose not to because
they feel it may compromise the privacy and/or security of their
users. Wikipedia is one high profile example, and a lot of porn sites,
for fairly obvious reasons, don't allow their users to be tracked by
social media and search engines.

Moreover, because Phorm sniffed actual traffic data at ISP level
rather than relying on client side and/or server side tracking, users
couldn't avoid it simply by disabling cookies (or using "incognito"
mode on their browsers) or sticking to untracked sites. The only way
to avoid being tracked by Phorm was to use a VPN.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 09:59:14 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <76a1mctaq7rko1pe2...@4ax.com>, at 10:42:28 on
>Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>
>>>What I mean is "which law, in this instance, would such a recognition
>>>have to be in?".
>>
>>The law mandating an unsubscribe link in every marketing email.
>
>There is no such law. All the current law specifies is a "means". A
>"link" is vastly too technology specific.

OK, then, the law mandating that every markting communication contains
a means of unsubscribing.

>To go further and mandate rules for how the customers' terminal
>equipment should interoperate with such a link would be both even more
>oppressive, and unrepresentative of the philosophical framework within
>such laws are drafted.

Indeed. But I am reasonably sure that the courts would interpret the
requirement that every marketing communication contains a means of
unsubscribing to mean that the means has to be reasonably accessible
to the typical user. Something which is only accessible to a small
number of users would not, I think, be considered to satisfy the
requirement.

Putting the means into the email headers, utilising a form that most
email clients do not support, is in "Beware of the Leopard" territory,
even if the relevent RFCs stipulate that email clients should be
leopard-aware.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <ojt202$um6$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:57:45 on Sun, 9 Jul 2017,
Mike Scott <usen...@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> remarked:

>On 09/07/17 09:59, Roland Perry wrote:
>...
>>> The law mandating an unsubscribe link in every marketing email.
>> There is no such law. All the current law specifies is a "means". A
>>"link" is vastly too technology specific.
>
>The ICO website
>(https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-pecr/electronic-and-telep
>hone-marketing/electronic-mail-marketing/)
>
>says (to organizations):
>"...you must not send electronic mail marketing to individuals, unless:
>
> they have specifically consented to electronic mail from you; or
> they are an existing customer who bought (or negotiated to buy) a
>similar product or service from you in the past, and you gave them a
>simple way to opt out both when you first collected their details and
>in every message you have sent.
>
>You must not disguise or conceal your identity, and you must provide a
>valid contact address

Street address or email address?

>so they can opt out or unsubscribe."
>
>Seems clear enough me me.
>
>In the case of my own bank, a hidden email header would not, I believe,
>be describable as "simple". And they didn't provide a contact address
>to opt out. Nor did I ever give permission. Nor would the branch sort
>out the issue. Fail on all significant counts.
>
>That page refers to "regulation 22", btw. I'm not sure where to look
>for that :-(

PECR, obviously :)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2426/regulation/22/made
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <rt74mc9lognlcr6q5...@4ax.com>, at 13:26:20 on
Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>

remarked:

>>>>What I mean is "which law, in this instance, would such a recognition
>>>>have to be in?".
>>>
>>>The law mandating an unsubscribe link in every marketing email.
>>
>>There is no such law. All the current law specifies is a "means". A
>>"link" is vastly too technology specific.
>
>OK, then, the law mandating that every markting communication contains
>a means of unsubscribing.

So to recap, you said:

"To put it simply, the law does not recognise the validity (or
possibly even the existence) of Internet standards or standard
technical facilities."

And I wondered if by "the law" you meant the body of law in the UK. But
now you've clarified you mean just one regulation, then it's far easier
to skim through it and say "yep, no mention of rfcs there".

>>To go further and mandate rules for how the customers' terminal
>>equipment should interoperate with such a link would be both even more
>>oppressive, and unrepresentative of the philosophical framework within
>>such laws are drafted.
>
>Indeed. But I am reasonably sure that the courts would interpret the
>requirement that every marketing communication contains a means of
>unsubscribing to mean that the means has to be reasonably accessible
>to the typical user. Something which is only accessible to a small
>number of users would not, I think, be considered to satisfy the
>requirement.

The wording of the Directive is:

"clearly and distinctly are given the opportunity to object,
free of charge and in an easy manner"

The list-unsubscribe header is both clear and distinct (what it isn't is
"obvious", but they forgot to specify that); the link it specifies is
reasonably easy to use, although does assume that the terminal equipment
an email client which supports mailto: links.

If I were going to make a case for non-compliance I'd probably start
there. FAOD, I don't think transcribing the url in question is remotely
"easy".

Although mindful of carts and horses, the UK transposition of the
Directive is less effusive than the wording above merely saying there
must be "a simple means". [clear/distinct/free/easy not present].

ps. We are continuing to assume that the safety notice in question is
within the remit of this regulation; I don't think that's been
adequately explored.

>Putting the means into the email headers, utilising a form that most
>email clients do not support,

OK, so now you've recanted from the proposition that "I'm not aware of
any mail clients that make the headers impossible to view". More steady
progress!

>is in "Beware of the Leopard" territory, even if the relevent RFCs
>stipulate that email clients should be leopard-aware.

Actually, it's a bit technology specific to even assume the unsolicited
email has arrived via Internet protocols. Other email platforms exist.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <3G+oeTzq...@perry.co.uk>, at 06:14:18 on Tue, 11 Jul
2017, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:

>The wording of the Directive is:
>
> "clearly and distinctly are given the opportunity to object,
> free of charge and in an easy manner"

...

>Although mindful of carts and horses, the UK transposition of the
>Directive is less effusive than the wording above merely saying there
>must be "a simple means". [clear/distinct/free/easy not present].

In other news, a blue-chip retailer who can sell you something in a
matter of seconds, has just told me:

"Please allow 72 hours for your {unsubscribe} request to be
processed."

And no, the regulation doesn't say quickly/immediately/etc either. But
sending another email now would tend to irritate their customers, and
presumably be unlawful.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 06:14:18 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <rt74mc9lognlcr6q5...@4ax.com>, at 13:26:20 on
>Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>
>>>>>What I mean is "which law, in this instance, would such a recognition
>>>>>have to be in?".
>>>>
>>>>The law mandating an unsubscribe link in every marketing email.
>>>
>>>There is no such law. All the current law specifies is a "means". A
>>>"link" is vastly too technology specific.
>>
>>OK, then, the law mandating that every markting communication contains
>>a means of unsubscribing.
>
>So to recap, you said:
>
> "To put it simply, the law does not recognise the validity (or
> possibly even the existence) of Internet standards or standard
> technical facilities."
>
>And I wondered if by "the law" you meant the body of law in the UK. But
>now you've clarified you mean just one regulation, then it's far easier
>to skim through it and say "yep, no mention of rfcs there".

Well, I mean both. Obviously, the specific context here is the part of
legislation which regulates marketing communications. But I'm not
aware of any legislation which explicitly recognises or acknowledges
RFCs and/or other Internet standards. I'm willing to be corrected on
that, if anyone has any examples.

>>>To go further and mandate rules for how the customers' terminal
>>>equipment should interoperate with such a link would be both even more
>>>oppressive, and unrepresentative of the philosophical framework within
>>>such laws are drafted.
>>
>>Indeed. But I am reasonably sure that the courts would interpret the
>>requirement that every marketing communication contains a means of
>>unsubscribing to mean that the means has to be reasonably accessible
>>to the typical user. Something which is only accessible to a small
>>number of users would not, I think, be considered to satisfy the
>>requirement.
>
>The wording of the Directive is:
>
> "clearly and distinctly are given the opportunity to object,
> free of charge and in an easy manner"
>
>The list-unsubscribe header is both clear and distinct (what it isn't is
>"obvious", but they forgot to specify that); the link it specifies is
>reasonably easy to use, although does assume that the terminal equipment
>an email client which supports mailto: links.

I don't think it's clear if you can't see it.

>>Putting the means into the email headers, utilising a form that most
>>email clients do not support,
>
>OK, so now you've recanted from the proposition that "I'm not aware of
>any mail clients that make the headers impossible to view". More steady
>progress!

By "do not support" I meant do not suppport the specific feature of
recognising a List-Unsubscribe header and presenting an option to use
it (eg, by clicking a button). The number of clients which do support
that feature is considerably smaller than the number which allow you
to view the headers.

>>is in "Beware of the Leopard" territory, even if the relevent RFCs
>>stipulate that email clients should be leopard-aware.
>
>Actually, it's a bit technology specific to even assume the unsolicited
>email has arrived via Internet protocols. Other email platforms exist.

They do, although non-Internet email platforms are not typically used
for marketing purposes.

Mark

[Roger Hayter]

I don't think it would be unlawful if they could show that 72hours was a
reasonable time to implement the decision. Many companies say something
like that, and especially if another marketing company actually
implements their spam distribution it may be reasonable. In the days
before computers a couple of weeks would not have been unreasonable.


--

Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <tke9mcl6nbt787lal...@4ax.com>, at 12:54:48 on
Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>

remarked:
>On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 06:14:18 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <rt74mc9lognlcr6q5...@4ax.com>, at 13:26:20 on
>>Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>remarked:
>>
>>>>>>What I mean is "which law, in this instance, would such a recognition
>>>>>>have to be in?".
>>>>>
>>>>>The law mandating an unsubscribe link in every marketing email.
>>>>
>>>>There is no such law. All the current law specifies is a "means". A
>>>>"link" is vastly too technology specific.
>>>
>>>OK, then, the law mandating that every markting communication contains
>>>a means of unsubscribing.
>>
>>So to recap, you said:
>>
>> "To put it simply, the law does not recognise the validity (or
>> possibly even the existence) of Internet standards or standard
>> technical facilities."
>>
>>And I wondered if by "the law" you meant the body of law in the UK. But
>>now you've clarified you mean just one regulation, then it's far easier
>>to skim through it and say "yep, no mention of rfcs there".
>
>Well, I mean both.

After much pulling of teeth, you finally agreed it was the latter.

>Obviously, the specific context here is the part of
>legislation which regulates marketing communications. But I'm not
>aware of any legislation which explicitly recognises or acknowledges
>RFCs and/or other Internet standards. I'm willing to be corrected on
>that, if anyone has any examples.

I quoted from the Ecommerce Directive. Did you miss that?

>>The wording of the Directive is:
>>
>> "clearly and distinctly are given the opportunity to object,
>> free of charge and in an easy manner"
>>
>>The list-unsubscribe header is both clear and distinct (what it isn't is
>>"obvious", but they forgot to specify that); the link it specifies is
>>reasonably easy to use, although does assume that the terminal equipment
>>an email client which supports mailto: links.
>
>I don't think it's clear if you can't see it.

But that's your choice for using a particular configuration on your
email client, which is outside the control of the marketer.

It would also "not be clear" if you chose to display the email on a two
inch smartphone screen with the unsubscribe text so small the pixels run
together.

>>>Putting the means into the email headers, utilising a form that most
>>>email clients do not support,
>>
>>OK, so now you've recanted from the proposition that "I'm not aware of
>>any mail clients that make the headers impossible to view". More steady
>>progress!
>
>By "do not support" I meant do not suppport the specific feature of
>recognising a List-Unsubscribe header

No you didn't. It was about displaying *any* headers.

>>Actually, it's a bit technology specific to even assume the unsolicited
>>email has arrived via Internet protocols. Other email platforms exist.
>
>They do, although non-Internet email platforms are not typically used
>for marketing purposes.

Which is very technology specific and not the sort of thing it's wise to
nail into legislation.
--
Roland Perry

[Mike Scott]

On 11/07/17 06:12, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ojt202$um6$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:57:45 on Sun, 9 Jul 2017,
> Mike Scott <usen...@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> remarked:
>> On 09/07/17 09:59, Roland Perry wrote:
>> ...
>>>> The law mandating an unsubscribe link in every marketing email.
>>> There is no such law. All the current law specifies is a "means". A
>>> "link" is vastly too technology specific.
>>
>> The ICO website
>> (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-pecr/electronic-and-telep
>> hone-marketing/electronic-mail-marketing/)
>>
>> says (to organizations):
>> "...you must not send electronic mail marketing to individuals, unless:
>>
>> they have specifically consented to electronic mail from you; or
>> they are an existing customer who bought (or negotiated to buy) a
>> similar product or service from you in the past, and you gave them a
>> simple way to opt out both when you first collected their details and
>> in every message you have sent.
>>
>> You must not disguise or conceal your identity, and you must provide a
>> valid contact address
>
> Street address or email address?

You tell me :-) I didn't write it!

>
>> so they can opt out or unsubscribe."
>>
>> Seems clear enough me me.
>>
>> In the case of my own bank, a hidden email header would not, I
>> believe, be describable as "simple". And they didn't provide a contact
>> address to opt out. Nor did I ever give permission. Nor would the
>> branch sort out the issue. Fail on all significant counts.
>>
>> That page refers to "regulation 22", btw. I'm not sure where to look
>> for that :-(
>
> PECR, obviously :)
>
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2426/regulation/22/made

Yes, I did find that eventually, thanks. Honoured in the breach rather
too often.

I'm all for an automatic nominal fine, enforceable in the civil courts,
for non-compliant or spam emails. With no upper limit to the total of
claims, Death by a thousand cuts, methinks.

(BTW, I signed up to a freebie tutorial website recently; I expected a
barrage of emails, but have had only a few -- all obeying commmonsense,
the law, and the spirit of the law. Every email contains a clear
statement of where it's from, and a clearly visible 'unsubscribe' link,
as well as a link to change other account settings. Good for them; I'm
impressed. If a small company can get it bang on, why shouldn't the big
boys?)

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:12:59 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <tke9mcl6nbt787lal...@4ax.com>, at 12:54:48 on
>Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:

>>By "do not support" I meant do not suppport the specific feature of
>>recognising a List-Unsubscribe header
>
>No you didn't. It was about displaying *any* headers.

I think I know what I meant!

There are two separate issues here, which are getting conflated. The
first is the ability to view all the headers, which is a feature
available on the majority of desktop and webmail clients although some
app interfaces to them lack it. However, viewing the headers also
displays a lot of useless (for most people) data, which is precisely
why they are hidden by default.

The second issue is the specific List-Unsubscribe header, which is
intended to be parsed by the mail client and an "unsubscribe" action
based on it presented to the user. However, very few mail clients
support this, and those which do are not among those most commonly
used.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <ok2rrg$u52$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:49:44 on Tue, 11 Jul

2017, Mike Scott <usen...@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> remarked:

>I'm all for an automatic nominal fine, enforceable in the civil courts,
>for non-compliant or spam emails. With no upper limit to the total of
>claims, Death by a thousand cuts, methinks.

I suspect that the GDPR will deliver close to what you want.

Sadly it's EU law, and thus very very bad, made by very very unelected
people, and potentially with a very very short lifetime.

So be very very afraid.

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <6fdamc1kod209f7lp...@4ax.com>, at 21:51:53 on

Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>>>By "do not support" I meant do not suppport the specific feature of
>>>recognising a List-Unsubscribe header
>>
>>No you didn't. It was about displaying *any* headers.
>
>I think I know what I meant!

I know what you said. If that wasn't what you meant, that's your problem
not mine!

>There are two separate issues here, which are getting conflated. The
>first is the ability to view all the headers, which is a feature
>available on the majority of desktop and webmail clients

Which is about 10% of the userbase.

>although some app interfaces to them lack it.

Which is most of the remaining 90%

Can you see the problem here?

>However, viewing the headers also displays a lot of useless (for most
>people) data, which is precisely why they are hidden by default.

You don't have to display it all.

My desktop client cherry-picks stuff like Subject, From and Date. Each
of which I wouldn't really want to do without.

>The second issue is the specific List-Unsubscribe header, which is
>intended to be parsed by the mail client and an "unsubscribe" action
>based on it presented to the user. However, very few mail clients
>support this, and those which do are not among those most commonly
>used.

You can't make law based on such technology-specific considerations.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:18:36 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <6fdamc1kod209f7lp...@4ax.com>, at 21:51:53 on
>Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>
>>>>By "do not support" I meant do not suppport the specific feature of
>>>>recognising a List-Unsubscribe header
>>>
>>>No you didn't. It was about displaying *any* headers.
>>
>>I think I know what I meant!
>
>I know what you said. If that wasn't what you meant, that's your problem
>not mine!
>
>>There are two separate issues here, which are getting conflated. The
>>first is the ability to view all the headers, which is a feature
>>available on the majority of desktop and webmail clients
>
>Which is about 10% of the userbase.
>
>>although some app interfaces to them lack it.
>
>Which is most of the remaining 90%

Do you have a cite for those figures?

My own experience, anecdotal that it may be, is that mobile users
generally prefer other forms of communication. Email is still
primarily a PC application, and even those people who do use it
regularly on mobile devices do so as an adjunct, rather than instead
of, a PC.

>
>Can you see the problem here?
>
>>However, viewing the headers also displays a lot of useless (for most
>>people) data, which is precisely why they are hidden by default.
>
>You don't have to display it all.
>
>My desktop client cherry-picks stuff like Subject, From and Date. Each
>of which I wouldn't really want to do without.
>
>>The second issue is the specific List-Unsubscribe header, which is
>>intended to be parsed by the mail client and an "unsubscribe" action
>>based on it presented to the user. However, very few mail clients
>>support this, and those which do are not among those most commonly
>>used.
>
>You can't make law based on such technology-specific considerations.

No. But you can interpret the law based on them. The question is, is
the legal requirement to include a means of ubsubscrining from a list
fulfiled by placing that means in a location where most people will
not see it? I would argue that it isn't.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <fkgcmc1uteup99ir4...@4ax.com>, at 18:56:56 on
Wed, 12 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>

remarked:

>>>>>By "do not support" I meant do not suppport the specific feature of
>>>>>recognising a List-Unsubscribe header
>>>>
>>>>No you didn't. It was about displaying *any* headers.
>>>
>>>I think I know what I meant!
>>
>>I know what you said. If that wasn't what you meant, that's your problem
>>not mine!
>>
>>>There are two separate issues here, which are getting conflated. The
>>>first is the ability to view all the headers, which is a feature
>>>available on the majority of desktop and webmail clients
>>
>>Which is about 10% of the userbase.
>>
>>>although some app interfaces to them lack it.
>>
>>Which is most of the remaining 90%
>
>Do you have a cite for those figures?

It's a figure based on OFCOM research of what type of terminal equipment
people use to connect to the Internet. Not uncommon for there to be a
degree of cognitive dissonance when it comes to habitual desktop users
tuning out the legions of smartphone owners around them.

>My own experience, anecdotal that it may be, is that mobile users
>generally prefer other forms of communication. Email is still
>primarily a PC application, and even those people who do use it
>regularly on mobile devices do so as an adjunct, rather than instead
>of, a PC.

70% of adults have a smartphone, and the most popular activity on
smartphones (93%) is sending or receiving email. Only 25% of the
population use a PC at home to access the Internet, with only a third of
those using it for social media, while 100% of under 25's have a phone,
and 97% of them use it for email.

When it comes to the technology used for email there's a neat split of
41% each, people preferring to use an "App" or a "Browser" (the
remainder "don't care"). A classic email client doesn't even get into
the Ofcom questionnaire.

Curiously, the table which segments activity by platform doesn't include
email at all; but has 8% of social media via desktops [that same one
third of 25% above].

While none of these numbers is precisely the one I quoted (userbase of
classic PC email clients/webmail), there is plenty of evidence that it's
not far off.

<https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/80828/2016-adults-
media-use-and-attitudes.pdf>

>The question is, is the legal requirement to include a means of
>ubsubscrining from a list fulfiled by placing that means in a location
>where most people will not see it? I would argue that it isn't.

It only has to be "simple", where I would expect a mail-to link to
qualify; not "obvious". An example of a "not simple" means would be
requiring someone to type (transcribe) a 20 character alphanumeric
during a freephone call.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 08:22:15 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <fkgcmc1uteup99ir4...@4ax.com>, at 18:56:56 on
>Wed, 12 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>
>>>>>>By "do not support" I meant do not suppport the specific feature of
>>>>>>recognising a List-Unsubscribe header
>>>>>
>>>>>No you didn't. It was about displaying *any* headers.
>>>>
>>>>I think I know what I meant!
>>>
>>>I know what you said. If that wasn't what you meant, that's your problem
>>>not mine!
>>>
>>>>There are two separate issues here, which are getting conflated. The
>>>>first is the ability to view all the headers, which is a feature
>>>>available on the majority of desktop and webmail clients
>>>
>>>Which is about 10% of the userbase.
>>>
>>>>although some app interfaces to them lack it.
>>>
>>>Which is most of the remaining 90%
>>
>>Do you have a cite for those figures?
>
>It's a figure based on OFCOM research of what type of terminal equipment
>people use to connect to the Internet.

"The Internet" is not email.

>Not uncommon for there to be a
>degree of cognitive dissonance when it comes to habitual desktop users
>tuning out the legions of smartphone owners around them.
>
>>My own experience, anecdotal that it may be, is that mobile users
>>generally prefer other forms of communication. Email is still
>>primarily a PC application, and even those people who do use it
>>regularly on mobile devices do so as an adjunct, rather than instead
>>of, a PC.
>
>70% of adults have a smartphone, and the most popular activity on
>smartphones (93%) is sending or receiving email. Only 25% of the
>population use a PC at home to access the Internet, with only a third of
>those using it for social media, while 100% of under 25's have a phone,
>and 97% of them use it for email.

Those figures are completely implausible. The idea that only 25% of
the population use a PC at home to access the Internet, in particular,
is bonkers. So is the assertion that 100% of under 25s have a phone.
However popular any technology is, 100% market penetration is in the
realms of fantasy.

In any case, those figures are contradicted by the document you cite.
In the summary, it states that "There has been a considerable rise
(from 6% in 2014 to 16% in 2015) in the proportion of adults who only
use smartphones or tablets to go online, and not a PC/laptop". That
doesn't fit with an assertion that only 25% of the population uses a
PC. And, in fact, the document also states that "Seven in ten (71%)
adults go online using a computer (PC/laptop)". Meanwhile, it also
says that "Two-thirds (65%) of all adults use a smartphone to go
online". So, according to that research, PCs are still the dominant
device overall even though mobile devices are gaining in popularity.

I can't actually find that figure of 25% PC users anywhere in the
document, maybe you could point out which table or graph it is. I did
find the figure of 93% email usage, but that relates to *all* Internet
usage, not use smartphones (page 10). There's a figure for 27% of
desktop users (page 30), but that has to be added to the 56% of
laptop/netbook users (ditto).

>When it comes to the technology used for email there's a neat split of
>41% each, people preferring to use an "App" or a "Browser" (the
>remainder "don't care"). A classic email client doesn't even get into
>the Ofcom questionnaire.

They're including those as "apps". They're not distinguishing between
desktop apps and mobile apps. See the text of the question asked, at
the bottom of figure 50 (page 77): "You said earlier you send or
receive emails. Do you prefer to do this through an app (including
Outlook or other software) or through a web browser?".

It would be helpful here if they did distinguish between mobile apps
and desktop clients, but I can understand why they didn't.

Another interesting point is that, while 93% of Internet users use
email on any device, only 63% use it on their smartphone (page 78).
And even then, only 49% use it at least weekly (figure 52, page 80).
That supports the assertion that most people use email more on PCs,
with mobile use being primarily an adjunct rather than the primary
use.

>Curiously, the table which segments activity by platform doesn't include
>email at all; but has 8% of social media via desktops [that same one
>third of 25% above].

It's 26% of social media via PCs, though, once you combine the figures
for laptops and desktops.

>While none of these numbers is precisely the one I quoted (userbase of
>classic PC email clients/webmail), there is plenty of evidence that it's
>not far off.

One of the advantages of being both a councillor and a computer nerd
is that I not only get a significant amount of genuine (ie, non-spam)
email from random strangers but I also have some fairly complex
filters in place to handle it. That allows me to run some analysis on
the email headers in my "council email" folders. Disregarding those
with headers that clearly indicate that they've been sent via some
form of mass-mail system (either reputable ones, such as MailChimp, or
disreputable, such as 38 Degrees) or which have clearly corporate
origins (eg, those with email addresses that indicate media or
charities), the top ten mail clients, in order, are:

Outlook
Yahoo/BT Mail
iPad Mail
iPhone Mail
Outlook Express
Hotmail
Gmail
Thunderbird
dmDroid
Apple Mail
Windows Live Mail

Of those, five are PC clients, two are webmail, three are mobile
clients and one (Gmail) can be either web or mobile (the headers give
no indication which). But, also, the top two are way out in front of
the rest - Outlook and BT/Yahoo together comprise nearly half of all
emails I receive from residents. Add Outlook Express, Windows Live
Mail and Apple Mail to that and the proportion is well over half.

That tends to suggest that the majority of email users both a) tend to
primarily use PC platfoms (Windows or Mac) to send email, and b) tend
to stick with the default for either their platform or their ISP.

There are two obvious disclaimers here. One is that sending email is a
much more intensive task than reading it; it's entirely plausible that
many people routinely read mail on mobile devices but prefer something
with a proper keyboard when writing it. So this doesn't necessarily
tell us much about people's reading habits, although it does suggest
that even those who do habitually read email on mobile devices still
have access to other devices should they wish.

The second disclaimer is that my correspondents are overwhelmingly
householders (since they are, typically, those who consume council
services and pay council tax), so their age demographic is higher than
average. I don't get very many emails from people in their teens and
early twenties! I also suspect that my email correspondents are,
typically, from a higher socio-demographic (ABC1) group - I haven't
analysed it, but my feeling is that those who fall into the C2DE
groups are more likely to use social media or the phone to contact me.
That will, clearly, skew the results of any analysis, since younger
people and those from a lower socio-demographic group are also those
more inclined to use mobile devices rather than PCs.

><https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/80828/2016-adults-
>media-use-and-attitudes.pdf>

Or, for those who don;t like having to glue back together a broken
link, http://tinyurl.com/kzs4nld

mark

[Judith]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 18:32:55 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <p1p*Wk...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:21:07 on Fri,
>7 Jul 2017, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>

>>>To put it simply, the law does not recognise the validity (or possibly
>>>even the existence) of Internet standards or standard technical

>>>facilities. For example, all browsers in common use have the ability
>>>to control cookies. And yet we still have the absurdity of the EU
>>>cookie directive.
>>
>>The EU cookie directive is not absurd. The way it has been unlawfully
>>watered down (in response to protestations from the very people whose
>>activities it was intended to stop0 has led to absurd results.
>
>Can you give at least one example of the way it's been watered down
>since the original final proposal from the deprecated unelected Brussels
>bureaucrats' original proposal, or even from what's in the Directive,
>when transposed to the UK?
>

>Do you think even the allegedly watered-down rule will survive Brexit.

I think the cabinet will just remove it as a "technicality" ;-)

[Judith]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 06:12:14 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <ojt202$um6$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:57:45 on Sun, 9 Jul 2017,
>Mike Scott <usen...@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> remarked:
>>On 09/07/17 09:59, Roland Perry wrote:
>>...
>>>> The law mandating an unsubscribe link in every marketing email.
>>> There is no such law. All the current law specifies is a "means". A
>>>"link" is vastly too technology specific.
>>
>>The ICO website
>>(https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-pecr/electronic-and-telep
>>hone-marketing/electronic-mail-marketing/)
>>
>>says (to organizations):
>>"...you must not send electronic mail marketing to individuals, unless:
>>
>> they have specifically consented to electronic mail from you; or
>> they are an existing customer who bought (or negotiated to buy) a
>>similar product or service from you in the past, and you gave them a
>>simple way to opt out both when you first collected their details and
>>in every message you have sent.
>>
>>You must not disguise or conceal your identity, and you must provide a
>>valid contact address
>
>Street address or email address?

Sorry Roland: I can't see what you are getting at.

Are there other forms of contact addresses?

Or were you trying to make a legal point which is too subtle for me?

[Judith]

Perhaps you should keep your eye on it - and take them to court if you think
you would win: do you?

I think if you are told that you must notify someone in writing - then the
notification does not take place and become actioned as soon as you drop a
letter in the box.

[Mark]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 11:21:39 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

--snipp-
>It doesn't have to be a link, either, it just has to be notification of
>an "easy means". Thus "Text STOP to 60036" in an SMS would suffice, you
>don't have to pre-load the SMS with a reply-to 60036 prefilled with
>"STOP".

But the user may have to pay for this text. Is this allowed under the
legislation?

[Mark Goodge]

Yes. The normal cost of sending something, be it an SMS, an email, a
phone call or a letter, payable to the provider of the service (eg,
your phone company) is acceptable. Of those, only an email is
practically zero cost nearly all the time, although SMS and phone
calls may be included in a call/text package. What the marketing
organisation can't do is make you pay *them* anything for
unsubscribing.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <nr1lmclovaa6of8kb...@4ax.com>, at 22:25:32 on
Sat, 15 Jul 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>>>It doesn't have to be a link, either, it just has to be notification of
>>>an "easy means". Thus "Text STOP to 60036" in an SMS would suffice, you
>>>don't have to pre-load the SMS with a reply-to 60036 prefilled with
>>>"STOP".
>>
>>But the user may have to pay for this text. Is this allowed under the
>>legislation?
>
>Yes. The normal cost of sending something, be it an SMS, an email, a
>phone call or a letter, payable to the provider of the service (eg,
>your phone company) is acceptable.

Oddly, the UK transposition doesn't mention "free", whereas the
Directive does.

Not that anything written in a Directive is of much use any more. In a
few years I have no doubt that big business in the UK will persuade the
unelected mandarins in Westminster that it's OK to charge people a
swingeing fee to opt out. A win for the masked power-grabbers behind the
Leave campaign.

>Of those, only an email is
>practically zero cost nearly all the time, although SMS and phone
>calls may be included in a call/text package. What the marketing
>organisation can't do is make you pay *them* anything for
>unsubscribing.

Indeed. And I think we've already shown that on at least the balance of
probabilities there's no such thing as shared revenue on an 8p SMS
to a number that's not registered with the regulator, and is thus not a
"Premium" number. They will start at about 25p.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <6sakmc945gkk4803s...@4ax.com>, at 15:58:04 on
Sat, 15 Jul 2017, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>>>You must not disguise or conceal your identity, and you must provide a
>>>valid contact address
>>
>>Street address or email address?
>
>Sorry Roland: I can't see what you are getting at.
>
>Are there other forms of contact addresses?
>
>Or were you trying to make a legal point which is too subtle for me?

Sorry it's too subtle for you. I was asking if an email opt-out could
specify a street address to snail-mail your opt-out to.

If that street address was in Antarctica, it could be quite slow and
costly too.
--
Roland Perry