"Downvoting has always been used to express disagreement." -- pg [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=392347].

Regardless, I happily admit to having personally downvoted your comment (although I think I accidentally upvoted your response to dubcanada :() under any set of rules: your comment expressed, not just matter-of-factly, but with a sort of vindictive glee, that you were happy to interpret that law however you wanted, and then use a vaguely related collaborative system to enact your personal punishment on others, despite how other people using that system may feel.

In so doing, your comment didn't address either of the points made by its parent: 1) that that seems to be a narrow definition and 2) that major providers seem to believe that this is fine, and they are large enough to probably know what they are doing. If anything, your comment admits that it is wrong, but that it somehow more personally satisfying to do the thing you want to do regardless. If I can't downvote you for that, I'm not certain why we have downvotes at all ;P.

> Actually, spammy behaviour by "legitimate" senders should be punished, and they will get the message.

The situation here is not "spammy behavior". Even if the behavior in question violated that law (which it does not seem to), that still wouldn't make the result "spam". When you combine this with your interpretation of that law being somewhat fringe, using the word "spam" here loses meaning.

> Unsubscribe should be one-click - email users have enough on their plates already, and if I have done something, however small, to improve the behaviour of mailers, I feel great about that.

Even if you believe that "encourage behavior" is a legitimate usage of the shared spam filter you are participating in, you have to realize that the behavior you are thereby trying to encourage is really problematic: it's like encouraging websites to just tell anyone your password when they click the "I forgot my password" button.

The various threads on this post have demonstrated multiple cases, some malicious, some benign--and even some from people who claim to be benign but don't pass the "would the person I'm doing this to consider it malicious" test--as to why "click link with no verification of any kind" should not instantly unsubscribe you from these mailing lists.

Moving further into "even if": even if (and I maintain that this is just wrong) you decide "spam filters should be used to determine whether people are in compliance with the CAN SPAM Act", the law states you are actually allowed to have interfaces that include "menus" as part of the opt-out to determine what should be opted out of (as you may want to continue receiving some e-mail, but not things like that).

Meanwhile, the law seems perfectly happy to not even require a link at all: you are actually allowed to require the user to send you a message in reply asking to be removed (in reality, it doesn't even mention having a website at all). Further, the law actually states you can continue to receive mail for 30 days after you initiate the opt-out.

Honestly, in a perfect world, it would seem to be that no e-mail would ever contain an unsubscribe link, and would tell the user "if you want to unsubscribe, reply to this e-mail and tell us you want to be unsubscribed"; there are ways (involving usage of e-mail headers that affect the reply to and return paths) to make forwarding the e-mail then safe against benign mistakes made by friends, and fairly secure against malicious attacks made by people you forward the e-mail, in ways that the link are not (as evidenced by the premise of this article).