Comments on: Should the White House be Exempt? http://theemailwars.com/2009/08/17/should-the-white-house-be-exempt/#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=should-the-white-house-be-exempt Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:43:21 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Joseph Manna, Infusionsoft http://theemailwars.com/2009/08/17/should-the-white-house-be-exempt/comment-page-1/#comment-5075 Joseph Manna, Infusionsoft Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:07:09 +0000 http://theemailwars.com/?p=1929#comment-5075 The answer is double-opt-in (confirmed opt-in) and a quarterly "list cleanup." On a quarterly basis, send an email allowing people to update their preferences and select which matters they wish to receive updates on. Not to hard, but there's not much pressure when they're sending mass broadcasts ... legally. ~Joseph The answer is double-opt-in (confirmed opt-in) and a quarterly “list cleanup.” On a quarterly basis, send an email allowing people to update their preferences and select which matters they wish to receive updates on.

Not to hard, but there’s not much pressure when they’re sending mass broadcasts … legally.

~Joseph

]]> By: Best of the Blogosphere: Week of 8/17 http://theemailwars.com/2009/08/17/should-the-white-house-be-exempt/comment-page-1/#comment-4866 Best of the Blogosphere: Week of 8/17 Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:10:09 +0000 http://theemailwars.com/?p=1929#comment-4866 [...] House got caught up in an email permission controversy last week.  Check out the backstory, an example of an email sent and some interesting questions posed over at The Email Wars blog, and the resulting White House [...] [...] House got caught up in an email permission controversy last week.  Check out the backstory, an example of an email sent and some interesting questions posed over at The Email Wars blog, and the resulting White House [...]

]]> By: John Caldwell http://theemailwars.com/2009/08/17/should-the-white-house-be-exempt/comment-page-1/#comment-4841 John Caldwell Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:07:10 +0000 http://theemailwars.com/?p=1929#comment-4841 Well, I just heard that the "flag@whitehouse.gov" - the "report your friends and family" address - is bouncing email back to the sender with "the email address is no longer in service". One of the measures they're implementing, perhaps? What does that say? Maybe another measure to implement is setting a limit on the number of email addresses that can be subscribed under a single IP address - or small bank of IP addresses within a given amount of time.... Just my $0.02 Well, I just heard that the “flag@whitehouse.gov” – the “report your friends and family” address – is bouncing email back to the sender with “the email address is no longer in service”.

One of the measures they’re implementing, perhaps? What does that say?

Maybe another measure to implement is setting a limit on the number of email addresses that can be subscribed under a single IP address – or small bank of IP addresses within a given amount of time….

Just my $0.02

]]>