Comments on: Emailing etiquette: An unbelievably rude way to control spam

By: Marilyn Sholin

Marilyn Sholin — Fri, 23 May 2008 12:58:17 +0000

I know someone that lost a speaking engagement opportunity because they not only don’t check their email daily, but they use an autoresponder. A speaker dropped out at the last minute and this convention needed to book someone to replace them immediately. By the time the person checked their email two days later they already had someone booked and ready to fly in. Receiving the auto response also let the convention think the potential speaker was away or too busy to bother. Another reason to be tied to your iPhone or Treo or whatever…but a necessity in these days of fast moving information and decisions.

By: Rob Domaschuk

Rob Domaschuk — Tue, 20 May 2008 15:01:03 +0000

I am surprised at the amount of “sales prevention” that a lot of businesses and people practice. Perception is everything and an auto-response like the one you received tells me that I need to earn the right to communicate with that person. There are much more effective ways of combating spam.

By: Alyson B. Stanfield

Alyson B. Stanfield — Tue, 20 May 2008 14:36:30 +0000

Tina: Love this: *Especially* because I’m a business – my email issues, including spam, are *my* issues to deal with. Not something for me to pass on to any sender. Kelly: Yep. That’s the other side of this. Liza and Helen: Yes, I’m certain this is not intended to be rude. But, boy, having this go out every time someone emails you is really bad biz. Debbie: Yeah, you kind of want those people to leave your list, don’t you? Burnell: Surely somewhere there is an article about Hormel and the appropriation of “spam.” From what I understand, Spam is enjoying (ick) a renaissance.

By: arlee

arlee — Tue, 20 May 2008 13:14:01 +0000

A sense of humour and common courtesy would also extend to anyone who after receiving yours, wanted more information. I don’t need a life story, but a very pre-emptory demand for info or materials without supplying details is in bad form too. Especially when they email me a second time saying “Respond!”

By: Burnell Yow!

Burnell Yow! — Tue, 20 May 2008 12:37:42 +0000

My grandmother often said, “There is only one sin. Rudeness.” One can only hope that the “photographer” in question reads your post and the comments to it, and reevaluates his/her strategy. Having said that, however, it’s always possible the decision to use such an abrupt auto-responder was made in a moment of extreme frustration over the amount of spam they were receiving. I’ve been there myself. I like your alternative message. Using a sense of humor in dealing with the issue of spam (or any issue, really) is preferable to allowing yourself to become upset. Hmmm…I just had a thought: I wonder if Hormel Meats is at all upset over the word “spam” taking on such negative connotations?

By: Debbie Overton

Debbie Overton — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:43:18 +0000

Oh boy was this perfect timing…I sent out a short newsletter a few weeks ago and immediately got not an auto respond but someone unsubscribed with “no thanks” and then sent me an email to say they did not appreciate the spammed newsletter…I didn’t ask them to sign up for my newsletter and I certainly didn’t ask them to continue to receive it for the past year plus, open it and click through out it. I chaulked it up as they were having a bad day….but like you Alyson I have my limits. Thanks for another great post just when I needed it.

By: Daniel Sroka

Daniel Sroka — Tue, 20 May 2008 00:31:06 +0000

Sophisticated server-side spam filters (like Google Message Filtering, which i recommend) are so easy and cheap to set up, there’s just no reason for this kind of a crude — and business-killing — method.

By: Helen Harris

Helen Harris — Mon, 19 May 2008 23:34:39 +0000

Dear Alyson, Thanks,I picked up on this topic because of your note on twitter.This provides me with some follow up that tweeting is a valid form of communicating. Rudeness is often a result of overload. I think we all need to heed your notes on prioritizing and decide just how many venues we can reasonably participate, keep up to date and personalize with a reply… not auto responders!

By: liza

liza — Mon, 19 May 2008 23:09:18 +0000

I had a very bad experience with an auto-responder and a group email list I was on. It kept responding every time anyone wrote in to the central group… and echoing endlessly because each time my auto-respond responded it would respond to the auto-respond… for 2 weeks. Fortunately I wasn’t as out of email as I had anticipated, and savvy participants in the group stepped in and fixed it. But this is somewhat different. It’s very easy to be more rude on email than one intends. What would be okay with a smile becomes devastatingly unkind (and definitely bad for business) without the visual cues. This guy/girl should figure it out!

By: Kelly Borsheim

Kelly Borsheim — Mon, 19 May 2008 22:04:21 +0000

Wow. I am surprised that anyone would USE an autoresponder! When a SPAMMER receives an autoresponse, it simply confirms that the sender’s e-mail address is valid and therefore sellable to other SPAMMERS. Duh! Why send the bad folks confirmation you exist, especially when you also annoy your legitimate contacts? The best protection from SPAM is probably a good SPAM filter and let that SPAM just disappear into Internet space.