





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.

   As with all sales leads, the ones which are developed and generated
   by the advertiser who will use them are of the most value.  There is
   an inherent value to collecting the data first-hand; by collecting
   the data directly from the prospective recipient, the advertiser can
   accomplish two important goals:

        -   The advertiser ensures that the recipient is genuinely
            interested in receiving information.  Thus, the advertiser
            can protect themselves from the negative impact of sending
            Unsolicited E-Mail ("spam").

        -   The advertiser maintains the ability to "pre-qualify" the
            lead.  One interested lead is worth more, from a sales and
            marketing perspective, than millions of actively
            uninterested potential recipients.

   If an advertiser maintains an active website or uses other mass-
   marketing tools (such as direct-mail), and they are interested in
   pursuing Internet Advertising, the advertiser can add a mechanism to
   gather sales lead data in a relatively simple manner.  From the
   perspective of Responsible Use, the only such mechanism to be
   discussed in this text will be the "Opt-In" concept, to be discussed
   in detail later in this document.





Gavin, et al.                Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


   Regardless of the manner in which the information is gathered, there
   are certain steps which the advertiser must follow.  The advertiser
   must inform the person that data is being collected.  In addition,
   the reason why the information is being collected must be clearly
   stated.  BE AWARE!  There are jurisdictions which restrict the
   collection of Personal Data.  The laws addressing collection and
   future handling of Personal Information will vary from place to
   place; advertisers must take steps to gain an understanding of those
   laws.

   Prudence should be the advertiser's guide.  If an advertiser is
   unsure as to the applicability or legality of an action, both in the
   jurisdiction of the advertiser as well as that of the recipients, the
   action must be avoided entirely.  Advertisers would be well advised
   to realize that, if they engage in spamming, they will inevitably
   break the laws of some jurisdiction, somewhere.

5. Targeting the Audience

   Advertisers have something to sell.  It may be a product, service, or
   other tangible or intangible item.  And, of course, the advertiser
   needs to get the word out to the market - quickly.  After all,
   neither the seller or the advertiser are making sales and earning
   profits if nobody is buying the product.  However, before advertisers
   can advertise the product, they must first determine to WHOM the
   product will be advertised.

   There are considerations in determining the answer to that question.
   This text has already addressed how the sending of Unsolicited
   Commercial E-Mail ("spam") can generate a number of negative effects.
   In addition, numerous surveys cited herein show that the vast
   majority of publicly-available mailing lists and Netnews groups
   similarly abhor spam.  The advertiser's first step should always be
   to determine which avenues are appropriate for advertising.  Then,
   advertisers must determine which avenues are appropriate for EACH
   SPECIFIC ADVERTISEMENT.  Advertisers are faced with the task of
   determining which Netnews groups accept ads, then of those, which
   groups are of a topic to which the proposed advertising is relevant.
   Similarly, the same work should be done for mailing lists.
   Advertisers should take some level of comfort in the fact that there
   *are* Netnews groups and mailing lists which welcome advertising -
   finding them is a worthwhile investment of the advertiser's time and
   resources.

   For assistance in locating such advertising-friendly websites,
   mailing lists, and Netnews groups, advertisers can consult existing
   ethical and responsible Internet advertisers.  Alternatively, any
   low- or no-cost research resource or search engine can be employed to



Gavin, et al.                Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


   find those groups and lists.  BUT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD AN
   ADVERTISER PURCHASE A MAILING LIST AND START MAILING!  There are
   other reasons which will be addressed further into this document, but
   to engage in such activity opens the advertiser to the liabilities
   and negative ramifications previously stated.  Such negative
   conditions cause increased costs to the seller/advertiser, when the
   risks (loss of connectivity, defense against litigation, avoiding
   discovery, etc...) are factored into an advertiser's overall
   operation.  In short, it is in the best interests of the seller and
   advertiser to ensure that the proper audience is targeted, prior to
   any further steps.

6. Reaching the audience

   Once the prospective advertiser has determined a target market for a
   specific advertisement, a manner of advertising must be selected.
   While these are too numerous to mention, this document concerns
   itself only with those that apply to the ethical use of Internet
   resources.  Of those, the pertinent ones to be examined (in order of
   desirability and effectiveness) are:

        -   A dedicated website or web page

        -   Advertisement placed on a "shared" advertising site
            (placing an advertisement on an established web-page
            which caters to people that indicate a potential
            for interest in (a) specific type(s) of product(s).
            Such advertisements can take the form of text, links,

            "Click-Through Banners", or other.

        -   Netnews posting

        -   Targeted E-Mail messages

   Note that any manner of blind broadcast (distribution-based)
   advertising which does not involve the targeting of the recipients is
   not considered responsible.

   Once the advertiser has determined the medium for reaching their
   target audience, there are key points to be considered, each being
   specific to the medium of advertisement:

   A.   Dedicated website or web page

        Advertisers have the option of creating a dedicated website, or
        a page within another site for their advertisement.  If, from a
        technical standpoint, an advertiser is unsure of the process for



Gavin, et al.                Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


        creating such a website, there are numerous resources available
        to provide assistance.  From no-cost avenues such as
        instructional websites; to low-cost resources such as books,
        videotapes or classes; to full-service businesses and
        consultants who can advise advertisers throughout the entire
        scope of the website/web page design, implementation and hosting
        process (or any part thereof), there is a solution available
        for every type of site and cost-structure.

   B.   "Shared" Advertising website

        Advertisers have the option of placing their advertisements on
        a website operated by a third-party.  For advertisers with an
        immediate need, such sites (also called "Electronic Malls",
        "E-Shops" or other names) have several advantages.  In some
        cases, a shared site can be more cost-efficient than building
        a dedicated website.  Many sites will target a specific market
        (refer to Section 5 of this document).  By using existing
        resources, advertisers can avoid the cost and burden of
        owning their own site.  Many websites will target a specific
        advertisement to a specific audience, thus providing much of
        the research for the prospective advertiser, and providing
        the advertiser the means with which to reach the most receptive
        audience.  Additionally, advertisements from such advertising
        sites can be integrated into a larger context, such as
        supporting free e-mail services, Internet access, or news
        broadcasts.  Such integration can lend a level of credibility
        to an advertising effort that might not exist otherwise.

        Some notes on the use of any type of website for advertising:

        Regardless of what method an advertiser chooses to use for
        for advertising on the Web, there are some specific caveats
        regarding customer interactions:

             First, the advertiser must ensure that their contact
             information - name, phone, e-mail address - are all clear
             and available;

             Second, advertisers should take care in creating forms
             which gather information about customers, as there is
             concern in the United States and other countries about
             gathering information from minors without parental consent.
             There is also concern about grabbing dynamic information
             via persistent state information, such as through the use
             of "cookies" or through data collection software resident
             on the user's computer without their knowledge.




Gavin, et al.                Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


             Information should only ever be gathered in a voluntary and
             informed fashion, as opposed to the use of cookies, forms,
             or other methods that may be available;

             Third, if advertisers DO gather information about people
             and plan to use it for marketing in ANY way, advertisers
             must be VERY clear to specify their plans as people
             submit their information.

   C.   Netnews and E-Mailing list group postings

        If an advertiser has selected newsgroups as a targeted medium,
        there are critical preliminary determinations to be made.  The
        accepted presumption should be that a Netnews group will not
        welcome spam, although there are newsgroups which are
        advertising-friendly.  However, the only way to determine
        whether a group welcomes a particular type or form of
        advertising is to either:

             -   read the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) to determine
                 what is specifically permitted or prohibited on that
                 particular group.

                 or

             -   ask the group by posting a message which briefly
                 notes how you intend to advertise your product.  Do not
                 mention any product details in this message, merely ask
                 if the group would object.

                 or

             -   if it is a "moderated" newsgroup, send an e-mail to
                 the group's moderator.  Many group moderators will have
                 a specific preference for how to deal with advertising,
                 through compilation, "digest" formats, or other.

        It is a recommendation that prospective advertisers read the
        groups to which they choose to post for a period before posting.
        Generally, an extended period of reading the messages in the
        group will give the advertiser an indication as to how their
        advertisement will be viewed or accepted on the group in
        question.

        However, this period of reading should not be used as a
        substitute for the suggestions above.  Many groups will have
        specific instructions and/or requirements for posting




Gavin, et al.                Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


        advertisements.  Advertisers who fail to meet those
        requirements will be undertaking irresponsible behavior,
        and will be subject to the effects thereof.

   D.   Compiled E-Mail Lists

        It bears repeating at this point: Let the Seller Beware.  The
        material discussed in Section 4 of this document is
        particularly relevant in the consideration of E-mail, and
        the use of compiled lists of e-mail addresses for advertising.
        Advertisers should understand that they bear the responsibility
        for ensuring the proper targeting of their recipients; the
        proper display of their or their seller's identities; and the
        use of resources or systems only with the express permission
        of the owners of those systems.

        When faced with the task of collecting and compiling recipient
        information, one option that is frequently presented is that of
        pre-compiled mailing lists.  Most often, these are advertised
        using the very method which is irresponsible, that of
        Unsolicited E-Mail.  There are numerous reasons why these lists
        should not be used.

        Many suppliers create mailing lists from addresses which they
        have gathered in mildly to extremely unethical ways.  Many of
        these list-makers rely on grabbing volumes of addresses without
        checking their legitimacy.  In other words, they send out
        software robots to grab addresses they find in News or Mailing
        List archives which may be many years old!  In addition, many
        list owners create addresses using a "dictionary", creating
        vast numbers of invalid addresses which are then sold to
        unsuspecting purchasers.  People change jobs, change ISPs,
        and change everything about themselves over time; trusting
        a third party for a mailing list is just not wise.

        It is known that some mailing list providers have created
        mailing lists from E-mail addresses of people who have asked to
        be REMOVED from their mailing lists.  They then sell these lists
        to other advertisers who think they're getting a list of people
        who will welcome the unsolicited information.

        Regardless of the source, however, advertisers and sellers bear
        the responsibility for maintenance of their lists.  Purchasing a
        list from a third-party shifts the maintenance costs of that
        list onto the advertiser who uses it.  Needless to say, this is
        only economical for mailing list vendor.





Gavin, et al.                Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


        Given these conditions, all evidence points to the fact that
        the greatest level of control of an advertiser's own success
        and liability rests with the advertiser themselves.  This being
        the case, advertisers are faced with the task of compiling their
        own lists of willing recipients of Advertising-related E-Mail
        messages.  As discussed previously, those leads which are
        generated by the advertiser are the most likely to have an
        interest in the advertisement, so they are also the least likely
        to protest the receipt of such advertisements via E-Mail.  It
        is this circumstance that makes the use of an "Opt-In" list
        (refer to Section 7 of this text) to be perhaps the most
        successful method of advertising distribution on the Internet.

        It must be noted here - for the same reasons that apply above,
        if an advertiser has compiled their own mailing list for their
        purposes, that list must NEVER be sold to another party.  Just
        as it is considered unethical to purchase a third-party mailing
        list, it is equally so to be the provider of that list.
        Customers who wish to receive information about your product
        are not likely to respond favorably when contacted in an
        unsolicited fashion by your business associates; protect your
        reputation from the backlash of bad-faith that can occur in
        such cases.

7. Opt-In Mailing Lists

   This document has laid out the basic facts of Internet Marketing; the
   advertiser bears the responsibility of their actions; there will
   always be recipients of that advertising who do not wish to receive
   it; there are reactions to every responsible and irresponsible act.
   Given these considerations, and taking into account the central
   message of this document; that Internet Advertising *can* be a
   successful venture for everyone involved; there remains a key tool
   for the Internet advertiser to harness.  Opt-In mailing lists provide
   the prospective Internet advertiser with the control they need over
   the list of their prospective target audience (validity of e-mail
   address; applicability to the intended product; willingness to
   receive advertising via e-mail).

   Opt-In mailing lists are consistently shown to be more effective in
   starting and maintaining customer relationships than any other type
   of Internet advertising; studies have shown Opt-In mailing to be
   Eighteen (18%) Percent more effective than Banner advertising [10],
   which has a response rate of only 0.65%.  It is so successful because
   the recipients of those E-mailed advertisements made a specific
   effort to receive them, thus indicating their interest in receiving
   information about products which the recipient felt were of interest
   to themselves.



Gavin, et al.                Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


   Advertisers wishing to employ Opt-In mailing lists in their
   advertising can turn to several resources for assistance.  If an
   advertiser operates their own website or web page, they already
   possess the most important facet, a web presence with which to invite
   participation in the Opt-In list.  If the advertiser chooses to use a
   shared website for their product, they can also utilize an Opt-In
   data gathering mechanism.  There are numerous forms and technologies
   that can be employed to build an Opt-In list - this document will not
   address them individually.  Rather, the purpose of this section is to
   provide the advertiser with information which, when used, will help
   protect the advertiser, and make the advertising experience a
   successful one.

   A. Privacy

      As stated previously, advertisers should take care in
      gathering information from Opt-In participants.  First and
      foremost, the person providing the information must be aware
      that they are doing so.  By taking these preliminary steps,
      an advertiser decreases the risk of having any messages
      interpreted as spam.  If, in submitting information for any
      purpose, the advertiser intends to use the submitted or
      inferred data for any mailings, there should be clear
      language indicating so.  Furthermore, persons submitting data
      must be given the choice to "Opt-Out"; that is, to choose to
      submit the data but NOT receive any advertisements.  A safe
      course of action is for the advertiser to configure their
      data-gathering so "Opt-Out" is the default; that is, to
      ensure that any members of the list have made a concerted
      effort to get onto said list.  In nearly all cases, merely
      having a "check-box" available with the caption

         "Please send me E-Mail advertisements or
          announcements about your products."

      is sufficient.

      It is crucial that advertisers be aware that different
      jurisdictions deal with the collection of personal data
      differently - the burden of verification of these laws rests
      on the advertisers.  For additional information on privacy,
      refer to Appendix B of this document.

   B. Integrity

      When maintaining a list where names can be submitted via some
      type of public or semi-public resource, such as a website,
      advertisers should take steps to verify every subscription to



Gavin, et al.                Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


      that list.  There are key pieces of data that can be used to
      verify the integrity of a particular subscription request,
      but the only person who can attest to the genuineness of the
      actual act of subscribing is the owner of the E-Mail address
      which has been submitted.

      To protect themselves from the risk of inadvertently spamming
      an unsuspecting recipient, advertisers should immediately
      confirm any submission.  In doing so, advertisers can satisfy
      all requirements for responsible confirmation of a subscription
      request.  In addition, if a person's E-Mail address has been
      submitted to a list without the knowledge or permission of the
      owner of that E-mail address, immediate notification of that,
      and the receipt of supporting data, enables the owner of that
      account to act accordingly to protect their account from future
      wrongdoing.

      When generating confirmations, the following information must
      be provided to the subscriber:

         -     the E-Mail address subscribed

         -     the manner in which it was subscribed
               (website or mailing list address)

         -     the Date and Time of the subscription request
               (via NTP, for uniformity in future reference)

         -     the IP Address of the host which submitted
               the request

         -     the full headers of the subscription request
               (where applicable, such as mailing lists)

         -     the Name, website address, and contact E-Mail
               address of the advertiser

         -     instructions to the recipient as to how to
               permanently remove themselves from the list

      In addition, a well-represented business will make an effort
      to communicate this material in a way which the average
      recipient can understand and relate to, such as the following
      example [11]:







Gavin, et al.                Informational                     [Page 14]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


        - - - - - - C O N F I R M A T I O N - - - - - - - - - - - -

        Thank you for your interest in Widget Sales!

        This is confirmation of your subscription request for the
        Widget Sales E-mail list.

        You are currently subscribed with this address:

                foo@bar.example

        Your request was received via our website at

                http://www.example.com/input.html

        If you did not submit this request, someone may have
        submitted it for you, or may be pretending to be you.

        If you wish to be removed from this list, Reply to this
        message with the word UNSUBSCRIBE as the body of the
        message.

        If you feel you were added to the list without your
        permission, the information below should be forwarded to
        your ISP's Administrative staff for follow-up, with an
        explanation of your concern.

        As stated in RFC-2635, "you can do this by sending mail
        to "Postmaster@your-site.example".  Your postmaster should be
        an expert at reading mail headers and will be able to tell if
        the originating address is forged.  He or she may be able to
        pinpoint the real culprit and help close down the site.  If
        your postmaster wants to know about unsolicited mail, be sure
        s/he gets a copy, including headers.  You will need to find
        out the local policy and comply."

        Widget Sales, Inc.            |      http://www.example.com
        Responsible Internet          |            info@example.com
        Marketing - Made Easy!        |       cust-serv@example.com
        -----------------------------------------------------------

        Submission Information:

         Request received for foo@bar.example from 192.168.0.1 at
            06:41:55:13(GMT) on 07.03.1999 via

         http://www.example.com/input.html




Gavin, et al.                Informational                     [Page 15]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


        E-Mail headers follow:

         Received: from 01.anytown.dialup.example.net
            ([192.168.0.1]) by adshost.example.com
            (FooBarMail v01.01.01.01 111-111) with SMTP
            id <19990703054206.VDQL6023@77.anytown.dialup.example.net>
            for <marcel@example.com>; Sat, 3 July 1999 01:41:55 +0000
         From: Customer <foo@bar.example>
         To: mail-list@example.com
         Subject: Submission Request
         Date: Sat, 03 July 1999 01:41:55 -0400
         Organization: Zem & Zem Bedding Company, Inc.
         Reply-To: foo@bar.example
         Message-ID: <k???12qelNxp7Q=??3dbgLHWTLv@4??.bar.example>
         X-Mailer: FooBarMail HTTPMailer Extension 1.0.532
         MIME-Version: 1.0
         Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
         Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   C. Protection

      Advertisers should be advised of certain measures they can take
      to protect themselves.  Frequently, and especially when the
      traffic on a particular mailing list is low, a subscriber may
      forget that they had requested membership on that list.  When a
      new message is sent and subsequently received, said recipient
      may lodge a complaint of spamming.  If this situation is
      multiplied by several recipients, the advertiser and/or seller
      risks losing their Internet access, even if they have acted
      responsibly throughout the process.

      For this reason, advertisers should keep an archive of all
      submission requests which are received.  This archive should be
      kept as diligently as the advertiser's operational data, and
      should be similarly safeguarded.  Having such requests available
      will protect the advertisers from any reports of spamming,
      whether they are malicious, or the result of a genuine
      misunderstanding.  For reasons that should be obvious, those
      messages should remain archived for a period that lasts AT
      LEAST as long as the list remains active.  While this is not
      necessarily a requirement for responsible behavior, it is a
      measure of safety for the responsible advertiser.

8. Irresponsible Behavior

   Shotgunning a message doesn't really work in any medium, but it is
   much easier to do with the Internet than with paper mail or telephone
   solicitations.  The steps which have been provided in this paper will



Gavin, et al.                Informational                     [Page 16]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


   assist the advertiser in creating a favorable environment for their
   work; in ensuring that they maintain a responsible presence on the
   Internet; and in targeting the types of customer and the methods to
   be used to reach those potential customers.  Given these steps, there
   are some actions which should be avoided as the basis for any
   Responsible advertising presence on the Internet.

   DON'T advertise money-making opportunities that can, in any way, be
   construed as Pyramid or Ponzi schemes.  (For information regarding
   those types of "investments", refer to Appendix A.1 of this
   document.)

   DON'T forge E-mail headers to make it look as if the messages
   originate from anywhere other than where they really originate.  Many
   domain owners have won litigation against advertisers who have used
   their domain name in an effort to conceal their true identity.
   [12][13][14]

   DON'T send out any sort of bogus message to "cover" the intended
   activity, which is advertising.  In other words, don't pretend that a
   personal message from the advertiser to someone else was sent to a
   mailing list by mistake so that the body of that message can be used
   to advertise, as in this example:

      Dear Tony - had a great time at lunch yesterday.  Per your
      request, here's the information on the latest widget I
      promised [...].

   DON'T use overly-general statements such as "Our research shows
   you're interested in our product."  Most recipients know this is
   usually a bogus claim.  Use of it can rob any legitimacy that the
   advertisement may hold.

   DON'T create mailing lists from third party sources (see Section 6;
   Part D of this document, above).

   DON'T SELL MAILING LISTS!!!

   Enough negativity!  Now for some helpful suggestions.

9. Responsible Behavior

   DO create a lively signature which tells the minimum about the
   product/service.  But keep it to 4 lines total (four lines is the
   maximum recommended length for signatures).






Gavin, et al.                Informational                     [Page 17]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


   DO participate in mailing lists and newsgroups which discuss topics
   related to the particular product/service.  Advertisers will find
   people of a similar interest there and many potential customers.  So
   long as an advertiser isn't offensive in their interactions with
   these groups they can find their participation quite rewarding.

   DO ask people if they want to be part of any mailing list that is
   created.  Advertisers must be clear about their intentions of how
   they plan to use the list and any other information that is
   collected.

   DO tell people how list data has been gathered.  If recipients are
   signed up from a web page, make sure the prospective recipient is
   aware that they will be getting mail.  Many web pages have getting
   mail selected as default.  Our recommendation is that the default be
   that recipients do NOT wish to receive mailings - even if the
   prospective recipients find an advertiser's site of interest.

   DO respect the privacy of customers.  Keep a mailing list private.
   For an advertiser to sell a mailing list is not responsible or
   ethical.  In addition, if offering any type of online transactions,
   advertisers should take care to encrypt any sensitive information The
   addresses of the list members should never be viewable by the list
   recipients, to protect your list members' privacy.

   DO take steps to safeguard all of the personal information that is
   being taken from customers, such as Credit Card or other Payment
   information.  Provide honest information regarding the methods being
   used to protect the customer's data.

   DO let recipients know how to remove themselves from a mailing list.
   Advertisers should make this as easy as possible, and place the
   instructions in every message sent.

   DO let people know for what purpose any data is being collected.
   Advertisers must ensure that their plans regarding data collection
   are legal.

   Advertisers and Sellers can check with the web site of the Better
   Business Bureau, which operates in the United States and Canada.
   (www.bbb.org) This organization has several programs and services
   which can help advertisers in those countries, and has other
   resources which will benefit advertisers of any nationality.

   "Advertisers should advertise responsibly the better mousetrap they
   have built, and the world will beat a path to their E-mail address."





Gavin, et al.                Informational                     [Page 18]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


10. Security Considerations

   This memo offers suggestions for responsible advertising techniques
   that can be used via the Internet.  It does not raise or address
   security issues, but special attention should be paid to the section
   on "Privacy".  While not strictly a network security consideration,
   privacy considerations can have legal ramifications that deserve
   special attention.











































Gavin, et al.                Informational                     [Page 19]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


Appendices

   Most readers of this document are probably aware as to why "Pyramid"
   or "Ponzi" schemes are fraudulent, and in most places, criminal.
   Appendix "A" describes how these schemes work and some of the risks
   inherent in their operation and participation.

   For a topical review of Privacy law across multiple jurisdictions,
   including several sovereign nations, Appendix "B" provides some
   resources for advertisers or other interested parties.

A.1  The classic Pyramid

   In the classic Pyramid scheme, there is a list of a few people.  A
   participant sends money to one or all of them, and then shifts that
   person off the list and adds their own name.  The participant then
   sends the same message to N people....

   The idea is that when a recipient's name gets to the special place on
   the list (usually at the "top" of the pyramid), they will get lots of
   money.  The problem is that this only works for everyone if there are
   an infinite number of people available.

   As an example, examine a message with a list of four people where
   each participant sends US$5.00 to each; removes the first name, and
   adds their own name at the bottom.  There may also be some content
   encouraging the participants to send "reports" to people who submit
   money.  Presume the rules encourage the participants to send out lots
   of copies until they each get ten direct responses, 100 second level
   responses, etc., and claim there is a guarantee that the participants
   will earn lots of money fast if they follow the procedure.

   First, some person or group has to have started this.  When they did,
   they were able to specify all four names so it was probably four
   people working together to split any profits they might get from
   being the top of the pyramid (or maybe they sent out four versions of
   the original letter with their name order rotated).  In some cases,
   all names on the list have been proven to be the same person,
   operating under assumed business names!

   While the letters that accompany these things usually have all kinds
   of language about following the instructions exactly, the most
   rational thing for a dishonest participant to do if they decided to
   participate in such a thing would be to;







Gavin, et al.                Informational                     [Page 20]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


        (1) send no money to anyone else; and

        (2) find three other people and replace all the names on
            the list.

   But, presume that not just this participant, but everyone who ever
   participates decides to follow the "rules".  To avoid the start-up
   transient, assume that it starts with one name on the list and for
   the next three layers of people, one name gets added and only after
   the list is up to four does any participant start dropping the "top"
   name.

   What does this look like after nine levels if everything works
   perfectly? The following table shows, for nine levels, how many
   people have to participate, what each person pays out, gets in, and
   nets.

      Level         People       Out          In        Net
      1                  1         0     $55,550    $55,550
      2                 10        $5     $55,550    $55,545
      3                100       $10     $55,550    $55,540
      4              1,000       $15     $55,550    $55,535
      5             10,000       $20     $55,550    $55,530
      6            100,000       $20      $5,550     $5,530
      7          1,000,000       $20        $550       $530
      8         10,000,000       $20         $50        $30
      9        100,000,000       $20           0        -20

   So if this scheme ever progressed this far (which is extremely
   unlikely) over 10,000 people would have made the "guaranteed"
   $50,000.  In order to do that, one hundred million people (or over
   ten thousand times as many) are out twenty dollars.  And it can't
   continue because the scheme is running out of people.  Level 10 would
   take one billion people, all of whom have $20 to submit, which
   probably don't exist.  Level 11 would take ten billion, more people
   than exist on the earth.

   Pyramid schemes are _always_ like this.  A few people who start them
   may make money, only because the vast majority lose money.  People
   who participate and expect to make any money, except possibly those
   who start it, are being defrauded; for this reason, such schemes are
   illegal in many countries.









Gavin, et al.                Informational                     [Page 21]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


A.2  What about Ponzi?

   A Ponzi scheme is very similar to a pyramid except that all of the
   money goes through a single location.  This method of confidence
   fraud is named after Charles Ponzi, a Boston, Massachusetts
   "businessman" who claimed to have discovered a way to earn huge
   returns on money by buying international postal reply coupons and
   redeeming them in postage for more than their cost.  Early
   "investors" in this scheme did get their promised return on
   investment, but with money that later investors were investing.
   Ponzi was actually doing nothing with the money other than deriving
   his own income from it, and paying latter investors' money to earlier
   investors.

   Notice the similarity to early pyramid participants, who "earn" money
   from the later participants.

   Just as pyramids always collapse, Ponzi schemes always collapse also,
   when the new people and new money run out.  This can have serious
   consequences.  People in Albania died and much of that country's
   savings were squandered when huge Ponzi schemes that "seemed" to be
   partly backed by the government collapsed.

A.3  So all multi-levels are evil?

   No, all multi-level systems are not the same, nor are they all
   "evil".

   If what is moving around is just money and maybe "reports" or the
   like that are very cheap to produce, then almost certainly it is a
   criminal scam.  If there are substantial goods and/or services being
   sold through a networked tier-system at reasonable prices, it is more
   likely to be legitimate.

   If the advertisement says participants can make money "fast", "easy"
   or "guaranteed", be very suspicious.  If it says participants may be
   able to make money by putting in lots of hard work over many months
   but there is no guarantee, then it may be legitimate.  As always, if
   it seems "too good to be true", it probably is.

   If people are paid to recruit "members" or can "buy" a high "level",
   it is almost certainly a criminal scam.  If people are paid only for
   the sale of substantial goods and/or services, it is more likely to
   be legitimate.







Gavin, et al.                Informational                     [Page 22]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


   It may also be worthwhile to look at the history of the organization
   and its founders/leaders.  The longer it has been around, the more
   likely it is to continue being around.  If its founders or leaders
   have a history of fraud or crime, a person should think very
   carefully before being part of it.

B.1   Why Web Privacy?

   Directories, lists or other collection sources of personal data are
   the current informational "gold rush" for Internet Marketers.  In the
   United States and other countries, there is no explicit guarantee of
   personal privacy.  Such a right, under current legislation, stands
   little chance against certain electronic technologies.  Some members
   of the global community have expressed concern regarding perceived
   intrusion into their personal privacy.  Still, the collection and
   sale of such information abounds.

   Self-regulation by businesses utilizing the Internet is the first
   choice of legislators, commercial websites, and Internet aficionados.

   However, the anticipated profit to be made by selling personal data
   and by using these lists for advertisement purposes, often dissuades
   self-regulation.

   United States Senator Patrick Leahy, Ranking Minority member of the
   Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate (at the time of the
   writing of this document) states very succinctly why we should
   respect Internet Privacy:

      "Good privacy policies make good business policies.  New
      technologies bring with them new opportunities, both for
      the businesses that develop and market them, and for
      consumers.  It does not do anyone any good for consumers
      to hesitate to use any particular technology because they
      have concerns over privacy.  That is why I believe that
      good privacy policies make good business policies."

   The Center for Democracy and Technology suggests Five Conditions that
   websites should use to be considerate of individual's rights to
   privacy:











Gavin, et al.                Informational                     [Page 23]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


        -   Notice of Data Collection

        -   Choice to Opt Out

        -   Access to Data to rectify errors

        -   Adequate Security of Information Database

        -   Access to contact persons representing the data collector

   Notice that the practice of data collection authorization can be
   accomplished using something as simple as an automated response E-
   Mail message.  Such notices should contain easily understood
   information about the collecting party's identity, and instructions
   as to how a customer can remove themselves from the collected
   population.  This will help assure prospective customers that an
   advertiser is a business of integrity.

   Businesses that pursue international trade (do business across
   national boundaries, overseas, etc...) bear the risk of facing legal
   prosecution for personal privacy violations.  The European
   Communities have legislation for the flow of Personal Information.
   If an advertiser is interested in pursuing business interests across
   borders, and particularly if a business intends to solicit and/or
   share Personal Information, the advertiser/seller must be able to
   guarantee the same privacy considerations as a foreign counterpart,
   or as a business operating in the nation in which the advertiser is
   soliciting/performing their business.

   Other countries and their legislation are shown below:

   Germany     -     BundesDatenSchutzGesetz (BDSG)

   France      -     Commision nationale de l'informatique et de
                     libertes (CNIL)

   UK          -     Data Protection Act (DPA)

   Netherlands -     Wet PersoonsRegistraties (WPR)

   Australia   -     Privacy Act of 1998 (OECD DAta Protection
                     Guidelines)

   Canada      -     The Personal Information Protection and
                     Electronic Documents Act






Gavin, et al.                Informational                     [Page 24]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


References

   [1]  Hambridge, S. and A. Lunde, "DON'T SPEW: A Set of Guidelines for
        Mass Unsolicited Mailings and Postings (spam*)", FYI 35, RFC
        2635, June 1999.

   [2]  Internet Spam / UCE Survey #1.
        http://www.survey.net/spam1r.html, July 24, 1997.

   [3]  ISPs and Spam: the impact of spam on customer retention and
        acquisition. Gartner Group, San Jose, CA. June 14, 1999. Pg. 7.

   [4]  CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., No. C2-96-1070 (S.D.
        Ohio Oct. 24, 1996) (temporary restraining order) [WWW],
        preliminary injunction entered, 962 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D. Ohio
        Feb. 3, 1997) [WWW | Lexis | Westlaw], final consent order filed
        (E.D. Pa. May 9, 1997)[WWW].

        http://www.leepfrog.com/E-
        Law/Cases/CompuServe_v_Cyber_Promo.html
        http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/cs-cp2.html
        http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/cs-cp3.html

   [5]  America Online, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., No. 96-462 (E.D.
        Va. complaint filed Apr. 8, 1996) [WWW] (subsequently
        consolidated with Cyber Promotions' action filed in E.D. Pa.).

   [6]  Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. America Online, Inc., C.A. No. 96-
        2486, 1996 WL 565818 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 5, 1996) (temporary
        restraining order) [WWW | Westlaw], rev'd (3d Cir. Sept. 20,
        1996), partial summary judgment granted, 948 F. Supp. 436 (E.D.
        Pa. Nov. 4, 1996) (on First Amendment issues) [WWW | Lexis |
        Westlaw], reconsideration denied, 948 F. Supp. 436, 447 (Dec.
        20, 1996) [WWW | Lexis | Westlaw], temporary restraining order
        denied, 948 F. Supp. 456 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 26, 1996) (on antitrust
        claim) [WWW | Lexis | Westlaw], settlement entered (E.D. Pa.
        Feb. 4, 1997) [NEWS.COM report].

   [7]  America Online, Inc. v. Over the Air Equipment, Inc. (E.D. Va.
        complaint filed Oct. 2, 1997) [WWW] [NEWS.COM report],
        preliminary injunction entered (Oct. 31, 1997) [NEWS.COM
        report], settlement order entered (Dec. 18, 1997) [Wired News
        report].

   [8]  America Online, Inc. v. Prime Data Worldnet Systems (E.D. Va.
        complaint filed Oct. 17, 1997) [WWW] [NEWS.COM report].

   [9]  Steiner, P.  "New Yorker".  July 5, 1993.  p.61.



Gavin, et al.                Informational                     [Page 25]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


   [10] Spam slam -- opt-in e-mail gains favor.
        http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2267565,00.html.
        May 28, 1999.

   [11] Eastlake, D., Manros, C. and E. Raymond, "Etymology of 'Foo'",
        RFC 3092, April 2001.

   [12] Parker, Zilker Internet Park, Inc., Parker, Rauch, Texas
        Internet Service Providers Association & EFF-Austin v. C.N.
        Enterprises & Craig Nowak [WWW]. Available:
        http://www.rahul.net/falk/zilkerjudge.txt

   [13] Parker, Zilker Internet Park, Inc., Parker, Rauch, Texas
        Internet Service Providers Association & EFF-Austin v. C.N.
        Enterprises & Craig Nowak [WWW]. Available:
        http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/flowers3.html

   [14] WebSystems v. Cyberpromotions, Inc and Sanford Wallace [WWW].
        Available: http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/websys1.html

Authors' Addresses

   Ted Gavin
   Nachman Hays Consulting, Inc.
   822 Montgomery Avenue, Suite 204
   Narberth, PA 19072 USA

   EMail: tedgavin@newsguy.com


   Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
   Motorola
   155 Beaver Street
   Milford, MA 01757

   EMail: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com


   Sally Hambridge
   Intel Corp
   2200 Mission College Blvd
   Santa Clara, CA 95052

   EMail: sallyh@ludwig.sc.intel.com







Gavin, et al.                Informational                     [Page 26]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


Acknowledgements and Significant Contributors

   JC Dill
   jcdill@vo.cnchost.com

   Barbara Jennings
   Sandia National Laboratories

   Albert Lunde
   Northwestern University

   April Marine
   Internet Engines, Inc.






































Gavin, et al.                Informational                     [Page 27]

RFC 3098                Advertising Responsibly               April 2001


Full Copyright Statement

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

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



















Gavin, et al.                Informational                     [Page 28]

