<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: CAN SPAM compliance information in images</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2009/07/can-spam-compliance-information-in-images/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2009/07/can-spam-compliance-information-in-images/</link>
	<description>Email, Delivery, Spam and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:44:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Khris Thayer</title>
		<link>http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2009/07/can-spam-compliance-information-in-images/comment-page-1/#comment-2282</link>
		<dc:creator>Khris Thayer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:39:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.wordtothewise.com/?p=468#comment-2282</guid>
		<description>At the end of the day, Most recipients have grown accustomed to seeing an opt-out/unsubscribe link in plain text as a footer below the &quot;creative&quot; used in a commercial email.  If there is no benefit aside from an arguable enhancement to design, why risk it?!  We, as ethical marketers should always be focused on the end user, customer experience. Make it easy for them, because if they do not want your offer anyway, why waste your time beating down their door?  Focus on what matters...identifying the right lead sources (Publishers, Affiliate Networks, Agencies, etc) and simply automate the opt-out process through a 3rd party, managed email compliance solution.

Feel free to visit www.optizmo.net &quot;resources&quot; page for help in this arena!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At the end of the day, Most recipients have grown accustomed to seeing an opt-out/unsubscribe link in plain text as a footer below the &#8220;creative&#8221; used in a commercial email.  If there is no benefit aside from an arguable enhancement to design, why risk it?!  We, as ethical marketers should always be focused on the end user, customer experience. Make it easy for them, because if they do not want your offer anyway, why waste your time beating down their door?  Focus on what matters&#8230;identifying the right lead sources (Publishers, Affiliate Networks, Agencies, etc) and simply automate the opt-out process through a 3rd party, managed email compliance solution.</p>
<p>Feel free to visit <a href="http://www.optizmo.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.optizmo.net</a> &#8220;resources&#8221; page for help in this arena!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard King</title>
		<link>http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2009/07/can-spam-compliance-information-in-images/comment-page-1/#comment-2280</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard King</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:33:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.wordtothewise.com/?p=468#comment-2280</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve actually had discussions like this with lawyers in the past back in 2004 when the Act was fresh and on everyone’s mind.  What i got from it is that the physical address needs to be in readable form no smaller then 8 point and in plain text, not image.  Now where does it say that in the Act?  It doesn’t but they would argue substance over form and when an image is blocked by an ISP and not the end user or when it is printed and images are not printed by default the individual will see no address thus “thinking” violation.  So why do it?  It looks bad anyway.  Its not law that I know of but why subject yourself to interpolations of “google” lawyers like myself   Just put it in text form.

-Richard King</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve actually had discussions like this with lawyers in the past back in 2004 when the Act was fresh and on everyone’s mind.  What i got from it is that the physical address needs to be in readable form no smaller then 8 point and in plain text, not image.  Now where does it say that in the Act?  It doesn’t but they would argue substance over form and when an image is blocked by an ISP and not the end user or when it is printed and images are not printed by default the individual will see no address thus “thinking” violation.  So why do it?  It looks bad anyway.  Its not law that I know of but why subject yourself to interpolations of “google” lawyers like myself   Just put it in text form.</p>
<p>-Richard King</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Romerstein</title>
		<link>http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2009/07/can-spam-compliance-information-in-images/comment-page-1/#comment-2281</link>
		<dc:creator>David Romerstein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:39:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.wordtothewise.com/?p=468#comment-2281</guid>
		<description>&quot;It may be that they want their entire email to be images, with no room for text.&quot;

I&#039;d suggest that, no matter how important it is that they have everything in an image, they should still be including a plaintext part that includes their identifying information as text. Isn&#039;t that why we have mime/multipart?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It may be that they want their entire email to be images, with no room for text.&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;d suggest that, no matter how important it is that they have everything in an image, they should still be including a plaintext part that includes their identifying information as text. Isn&#8217;t that why we have mime/multipart?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
