rfc3098.txt

来自「RFC 的详细文档！」· 文本 代码 · 共 1,537 行 · 第 1/5 页

Network Working Group                                           T. Gavin
Request for Comments: 3098                       Nachman Hays Consulting
FYI: 38                                                  D. Eastlake 3rd
Category: Informational                                         Motorola
                                                            S. Hambridge
                                                                   Intel
                                                              April 2001


        How to Advertise Responsibly Using E-Mail and Newsgroups
                            or - how NOT to
                    $$$$$  MAKE ENEMIES FAST!  $$$$$

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This memo offers useful suggestions for responsible advertising
   techniques that can be used via the internet in an environment where
   the advertiser, recipients, and the Internet Community can coexist in
   a productive and mutually respectful fashion.  Some measure of
   clarity will also be added to the definitions, dangers, and details
   inherent to Internet Marketing.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction ..............................................  2
   2.  Image and Perception of the Advertiser.....................  4
   3.  Collateral Damage .........................................  5
   4.  Caveat Mercator ...........................................  5
   5.  Targeting the Audience ....................................  7
   6.  Reaching the audience .....................................  8
       A.   Dedicated website or web page ........................  8
       B.   "Shared" Advertising website .........................  9
       C.   Netnews and E-Mailing list group postings ............ 10
       D.   Compiled E-Mail Lists ................................ 11
   7.  Opt-In Mailing Lists ...................................... 12
       A. Privacy ................................................ 13
       B. Integrity .............................................. 13
       C. Protection ............................................. 16



Gavin, et al.                Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


   8.  Irresponsible Behavior .................................... 16
   9.  Responsible Behavior ...................................... 17
   10. Security Considerations ................................... 19
   Appendices .................................................... 20
     A.1  The classic Pyramid .................................... 20
     A.2  What about Ponzi? ...................................... 22
     A.3  So all multi-levels are evil? .......................... 22
     B.1  Why Web Privacy? ....................................... 23
   References .................................................... 25
   Authors' Addresses ............................................ 26
   Acknowledgments and Significant Contributors .................  27
   Full Copyright Statement ...................................... 28

1. Introduction

   The Internet is not a free resource.  Access to and a presence on the
   'Net comes at a cost to the participants, the service provider, and
   the recipients of those services made available by the Internet.  The
   more readily available internet has allowed users access to an
   unprecedented number of people.  Due to the rapid growth and
   "mainstream" acceptance of the 'Net, new opportunities have been
   found for the distribution of information to the vast and ever-
   growing community of Internet users.  There are groups and
   individuals who choose to use the 'Net for purposes for which it was
   not intended, thus defying the consensus among both the practitioners
   and the unwilling recipients.  The aforementioned practice, of
   course, is the sending of Unsolicited Commercial and Bulk E-Mail
   messages, posts to Netnews groups, or other unsolicited electronic
   communication.  This condition has caused an awakening on the part of
   the Internet community-at-large.

   There are stereotypes that must be broken before continuing.  Not all
   persons who are new to the Internet are ignorant of the 'Net's
   history and evolution, or its proper and ethical uses.  Nor are all
   experienced, long-term Netizens against the use of the Internet for
   advertising, marketing, or other business purposes.  Where these two
   groups can find commonality is in their opposition to the use of the
   Internet in irresponsible ways.  Some of these irresponsible uses
   include, but are not limited to, the sending of Unsolicited Bulk or
   Commercial E-Mail to mailing lists, individuals, or netnews groups.
   In the vernacular, this activity is called "spamming" (the sending of
   "spam" [1]).  To understand why such activities are irresponsible,
   one must first understand the true cost and ramifications of such
   actions.

   The protocols and architecture upon which the 'Net is built, which
   are recognized and adhered to as standards, provide for an openness
   and availability which foster and encourage easy communication.



Gavin, et al.                Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


   These standards were developed at a time when there was no need to
   consider the concept of "rejecting" information.  While those
   standards have evolved, they continue to emphasize open
   communication.  As such, they do not associate costs or impact with
   the user-initiated activities which may occur.  Because of this
   openness, persons can and do send large volumes of E-Mail, with
   little-to-no cost or financial impact for the volume of messages
   sent.  Needless to say, this presents the attractive option (to those
   who would consider such activity) of multiplying the recipients of
   their marketing material, and presumably, increasing their success-
   rate.  However, and to reiterate an earlier statement in this text,
   there is a cost to be incurred at some point in this communication
   relationship.  In the case of E-Mail advertising, since the cost of
   operation does not increase on the part of the sender, it must
   therefore increase on the side of the recipient.

   And it does.  Every recipient of every E-Mail message bears a cost,
   either direct (cost per message received, an incremental increase in
   connection charges) or indirect (higher service fees to recoup
   infrastructural costs associated with the additional 'Net traffic
   which such mass-mailings create).  In addition, other resources, such
   as the disk space and time of the recipient, are consumed.

   Because the recipients have no control over whether or not they will
   receive such messages, the aforementioned costs are realized
   involuntarily, and without consent.  It is this condition (the
   absence of consent to bear the costs of receipt of a mass-
   distributed message) that has shaped the Internet Community's
   viewpoint - that the act of sending spam constitutes a willful theft
   of service, money, and/or resources.  Those who choose to ignore the
   financial impact, and instead focus on the consumption of indirect
   resources, have been known to label spam "Internet Pollution".

   The Internet provides a tremendous opportunity for businesses, both
   large and small.  There is certainly money to be made using the 'Net
   as a resource.  This paper recommends practices and ways to use the
   Internet in manners which are not parasitic; which will not, by their
   mere existence, engender predetermined opposition, litigation, or
   other negative conditions.  This paper does not guarantee freedom
   from those, or other negative responses - rather, it provides the
   reader with a framework through which the marketer/advertiser and the
   'Net community (and more importantly, the seller's target market) can
   coexist as well as possible.








Gavin, et al.                Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


2. Image and Perception of the Advertiser

   While it may appear to be financially attractive to advertise via the
   use of Mass-Messaging ("spam"), as a responsible Internet user,
   ADVERTISERS SHOULD AVOID THIS OPTION.  The possibility of income
   generation and market or business expansion are minuscule when
   compared to some of the risks:

        -   The alienation of the vast majority of the recipients
            of an advertising message [2][3]

        -   The damage or loss of credibility in the advertisers
            market [2]

        -   Loss in advertiser's and/or seller's Internet
            connectivity (most service providers have strict
            "zero tolerance" policies which prohibit the use
            of their systems for the sending of spam, or
            for encouraging or enabling such activities)

        -   Civil and Criminal litigation.  In the United States,
            (and progressively in other sovereign states), it has
            become accepted as fact that the theft-of-service
            associated with spamming often constitutes an
            unlawful use of private property and is actionable
            as trespass to chattels (a civil law term
            tantamount to "theft") in civil court [4][5][6][7]
            [8].

   It is a fundamental tenet to any Internet presence that a party will
   be responsible for their Internet "image", or the personae that they
   create.  If an advertiser sells a product which is enjoyed by many,
   and the advertiser has not alienated, offended or angered a
   disproportionately larger number of uninterested recipients, that
   advertiser could be viewed as a hero.  Conversely, an advertiser
   broadcasting their product to millions of uninterested parties, at
   the parties' cost, will earn the advertiser the moniker of "spammer",
   thief, or other less attractive names.  The advertiser will be held
   responsible for those actions, and the effects those actions have in
   the marketplace, which is to say, the 'Net community.

   "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." [9]  That was the
   caption to an illustration published in the 1990's.  The message is
   clear - the Internet renders all parties anonymous.  The methods used
   to sell products in the traditional sales channels - language, image,
   relationships, eye contact or body language - no longer apply when
   measuring an Internet sale.  Reputation, reliability, honesty,
   trustworthiness, and integrity have taken the place of the more



Gavin, et al.                Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


   direct sales approaches that have been previously used.  These are
   dictated by the rate at which both information and misinformation
   travel on the Internet.  And, just as an Internet user cannot control
   what messages are sent to them, neither can the Internet marketer
   control the information that is disseminated about them, or their
   activities.  Some information will circulate that is not accurate.
   Perhaps there will be cases where there will be information
   circulating which is downright incorrect.  But, a successful market
   reputation, based on ethical behavior, will render the inevitable
   piece of misinformation meaningless.  For an advertiser to exist
   responsibly on the Internet is for the advertiser and seller to take
   active responsibility for their actions.

3. Collateral Damage

   As this paper has pointed out, there is ample reason to expect that
   the sending of spam will result in a significant level of undesirable
   reactions, targeted at the advertiser and/or the seller.  Death
   threats, litigation and retaliatory actions are commonplace.  For
   these reasons, "spammers" (and in particular, those entities
   providing mass-mailing services for third-party businesses) will
   frequently take steps to ensure their anonymity.  These actions take
   various forms, and have been known to include:

        -   Forging the sender name, domain name, or IP Address
            of the sender (called "spoofing")

        -   Sending messages through any type of hardware, software
            or system which belongs to an uninvolved third-party
            (called "relaying")

   Each of these activities, as well as numerous others, are criminal
   acts in many countries.  It is unethical to use the resources of any
   other party without their express permission. To do so breaches the
   laws of numerous jurisdictions and international agreements -
   offenders have been successfully prosecuted in numerous
   jurisdictions.

4. Caveat Mercator

   "Let the Seller beware."  Advertisers and Sellers can be held
   responsible for the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of the messages
   they send when applied to the recipients to whom the advertisements
   are sent.  For this reason, all prospective advertisers must first be
   absolutely certain that the recipients of their advertising are
   appropriate.  For example, sending an advertisement which contains a
   link to a website where content of an overt sexual nature is
   displayed can have many undesirable consequences:



Gavin, et al.                Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


        -   In many countries, providing such material to under-
            age minors is a crime.  As the provider of the link,
            the advertiser's position is tenuous.

        -   In some countries, such material is a crime to view,
            possess, or distribute ("trafficking").  As the website
            owner or advertiser, a party engaging in such activities
            must consider the ramifications of international law.

   To prevent such risk, advertisers should qualify the recipients of
   their advertising.  However, it must be noted that E-Mail addresses
   provide little useful information to that end.  Remember, "On the
   Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."  Advertisers will have no way
   to qualify a prospective recipient as an adult with complete
   discretionary and plenipotentiary authority.  In other words, an
   advertisement targeting a high-income population in need of property
   investment opportunities may be sent to a group of school children.
   Or a dog.

   How then, does the prospective advertiser/seller determine the
   quality of their leads?  The essential requirement is that the
   advertiser "know" their audience.