<?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: Nov. 2006 Quick Links	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/11/nov_2006_quick.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/11/nov_2006_quick.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2006 03:45:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Dave Zan		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/11/nov_2006_quick.htm#comment-498</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave Zan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2006 03:45:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/11/nov_2006_quick.htm#comment-498</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Or they could simply input an opt-out link on every email sent. Bulk email providers like Aweber and Getresponse do this easily.

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Or they could simply input an opt-out link on every email sent. Bulk email providers like Aweber and Getresponse do this easily.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Michael Risch		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/11/nov_2006_quick.htm#comment-497</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Risch]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:10:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/11/nov_2006_quick.htm#comment-497</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The Yesmail issue shouldn&#039;t be difficult at all.  Presumably they have a list of everyone they sent email to.  All they need to do is add that list to the &quot;approved senders&quot; filter in their spam blocker and it&#039;s all good.

OR, they could have a separate mailserver that accepts only opt-out requests, so that spam that server receives is simply ignored.

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Yesmail issue shouldn&#8217;t be difficult at all.  Presumably they have a list of everyone they sent email to.  All they need to do is add that list to the &#8220;approved senders&#8221; filter in their spam blocker and it&#8217;s all good.</p>
<p>OR, they could have a separate mailserver that accepts only opt-out requests, so that spam that server receives is simply ignored.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Cathy		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/11/nov_2006_quick.htm#comment-496</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cathy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:48:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/11/nov_2006_quick.htm#comment-496</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Re: DoubleClick study - It makes sense to me.  If I&#039;m embroiled with my web browsing I&#039;m probably not going to want to derail myself by chasing down a banner ad.  But if something caught my eye, I&#039;ll be glad to follow-up on it when I have the concentration available to do it.

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: DoubleClick study &#8211; It makes sense to me.  If I&#8217;m embroiled with my web browsing I&#8217;m probably not going to want to derail myself by chasing down a banner ad.  But if something caught my eye, I&#8217;ll be glad to follow-up on it when I have the concentration available to do it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Seth Finkelstein		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/11/nov_2006_quick.htm#comment-495</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Seth Finkelstein]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:19:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/11/nov_2006_quick.htm#comment-495</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot;First, breaking with an unbroken string of cases dating back to 1996, it upholds the state law prohibiting the dissemination of harmful to minor materials over the Internet from a Constitutional challenge.&quot;

Are you working from what Declan passes off for journalism, or is that your independent judgment?

&quot;First, breaking with an unbroken string of cases dating back to 1996, ...&quot; - this doesn&#039;t seem right to me. Those case were either a different standard (CDA) and to-the-public, and did not rule on the specific knowledge situation.

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;First, breaking with an unbroken string of cases dating back to 1996, it upholds the state law prohibiting the dissemination of harmful to minor materials over the Internet from a Constitutional challenge.&#8221;</p>
<p>Are you working from what Declan passes off for journalism, or is that your independent judgment?</p>
<p>&#8220;First, breaking with an unbroken string of cases dating back to 1996, &#8230;&#8221; &#8211; this doesn&#8217;t seem right to me. Those case were either a different standard (CDA) and to-the-public, and did not rule on the specific knowledge situation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
