Readers' Comments

Reader Comments on Aardvark Daily 27 Mar 2001
Note: the comments below are the unedited submissions of readers and do
not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publisher.
From: Russell Holland
Subject: DMA - For Publication

Perhaps you can ask the contact from DMA why they don't answer emails - I
sent one yesterday asking about how they plan to relate to web content
creators - after all it's us that's at the coal face....



The DMA Replies!
From: Keith Norris
For : Right Of Reply (for publication)
Subj: Reply to Russell Holland,

Russell,
You asked how the DMA plans to relate to web content
creators:
We have a newly-formed eMarketing Council set up
specifically to support people involved in all aspects of
internet marketing.

The team running this council are all active professionals
from organisations and agencies using eComms. They would be
delighted to hear from you.

Email me at keith@dma.co.nz if you'd like to know more





From: Julian Stone
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Urgent Geekpages Message!

Urgent Geekpages Message!
---------------------------
In the tradition of Murphy's Law, The server (Strongnet's -
doh!) holding geekpages.co.nz has decided to have trouble
at the precise time an ad for the site appears on Aardvark.
So I now have heaps of people looking at a blank screen
instead of my site.
Please persevere - They'll have it back online very soon.
Any else had unfortunate server troubles at really
inconvenient times?

In the meantime - Strongnet - please get your act together!




From: Christopher Cookson
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Spam, Privacy

It's an irony that both spam AND privacy are concerns facing internet
users. You'd think if all this harvesting of personal information was
going on that spam would become highly targetted. Sure it's still spam,
but if it's relating to a topic that vaguely interests the recipient,
there's a good chance some users out there might be inclined to take a
look. Instead it's still totally untargetted, irrelevent, and a rip-off
for both the idiots who pay for bulk mail services, and also their
intended audience.

Heck, what do I want to look 20 years younger for? Sure
I'm single and looking, but are ten year old looks really going to appeal
to intelligent women? Or how about all that viagra that's supposed to
boost my sexual performance? Well maybe, if they'd throw in a free
supermodel, but otherwise it's totally useless.

What about emails inviting me to photo exhibitions, fishing trips, or
maybe airshows? I'm interested in all those things, and if someone did
a bit of reseach about me online, they could probably find all that out,
but no, someone's gathering data, but it sure ain't the purveyors of spam.

Actually a good clean way to tidy up spam, which would probably end up being
largely self-regulating would be to make it legally binding for all commercial
advertising email to require a digital signature. It's easy enough to get a
free personal cert for most popular mail software, and it would make creating
multiple fake addresses a non-trivial task. In addition to the signature, for
the mail to be legal, it would have to have a valid return address clearly
identifiable as belonging to the sender. That way spammers would be much
easier to identify, and their own mailboxes just as open to flooding from
annoyed netizens.




From: Steve Bell
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Email spam

Replying to Christopher Cookson's point about legally
requiring digital certs and physical addresses, the obvious
question is "under whose law?"

Once when I replied to a spammer (and successfully got the
message through) saying he was invading my privacy, he
replied "Here in the US, we have a principle
called 'freedom of speech'. You may be unfamiliar with it
in your country."

How does Mr Cookson propose binding overseas (mostly US)
spammers by a New Zealand law? I know there's a theoretical
principle that says if any part of an offence is committed
in NZ, then NZ has jusrisdiction; but practically, I can't
see infractions of any new law being pursued very far.





From: Nick
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Amazon.com

Im not picking on Amazon & its strange CEO, but take a look
at this quote from Bezos:

"We started and wanted to build a small, profitable company.
And of course we built a large, unprofitable company. That
is, however, by design."

So I guess its ok to run an unprofitable company, as long as
its large & you design it to be so.

An interesting concept, designing a business to be
unprofitable, although Bezos on Monday told viewers of the
financial news network CNBC that he stands by his previously
stated pledge that the company would achieve a pro forma
operating profit by the end of 2001. (I wont hold my breath)

Bit of a contridiction to the 'designed to be
unprofitable' quote.

Why say that the company will make a proforma profit, when
you have 'designed it to be unprofitable?'

Is this guy on plant earth?

My advice to Amazon.com investors, sell, sell, sell, and
quick!
Now Have Your Say