[ Date Index ][
Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date /
thread ]
[ Next by date /
thread => ]
Ok good poimt, at least thats one meathod we have looked at, I will send an e-mail to the torbay libtary guy once we have perhaps agreed on something, like which book to use. Perhaps we could have a simple voting system on the lug site. Paul
Generally, this method is far less effective than individual letters (snail mail, printed, letters). Mainly because it's obvious that the email has been generated automatically. (If you don't care enough to write your own letter, why should they care enough to read your automated complaint/proposal?) If someone receives a petition of signatures, it means a lot less than half the number of individual letters. How many people actually read newsletters? Same principle.if we all agree on what the actual e-mail says its better than lots of e-mails which could easily just get ignored or delete, not to mentionA mass 'signed' email is MORE likely to get ignored (or trip a spam filter). Besides, how is the receiver to know that I haven't just added the entire DCLUG subscriber list to the note - there's no way of knowing that all the people listed have actually agreed to the contents, stating as much just makes it look more like spam. With no way of verifying email addresses, I could just use a random character generator with a judicious use of . and @ to create millions of unverifiable, meaningless names and email addresses. Anything at aol, hotmail, yahoo or tiscali etc. should do. (After all, that's the start of many a spamming career.)problems with sending lots of e-mails with the same subject line, now that SPAM has been outlawed.IMHO, email is a weak medium for such campaigns because it is very difficult to make a bulk email not look like spam. (If it wasn't so difficult, spammers would be the only winners.)
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe.