Diary of a junk mail campaigner

Website of All-Party Group on Junk Mail finally taken down

nospam@example.com (Junk Buster) — Fri, 04 May 2012 10:41:53 +0100

In January, I contacted my MP about the website of the All-Party Group on Junk Mail. The group had long since been abolished but the Read Group Plc, the junk mail company that provided its secretariat, kept the website alive and shamelessly used it to promote its services and give the public factually incorrect and biased information about reducing junk mail.

I'm pleased to let you know the website has now been taken down.

Stop Junk Mail Causes: Vim!

nospam@example.com (Junk Buster) — Thu, 03 May 2012 14:33:09 +0100

Over the next four months 10% of sticker sales will go to Vim!

Unless you're a programmer and/or system administrator this probably doesn't excite you one bit. Vim is a text editor, mostly used for things such as fiddling with configuration files and programming. It's a powerful toy, but not one the average computer user is likely to ever use.

So why Vim? It's partly because it's my editor of choice, and partly because all money donated to Vim goes to ICCF Holland, a charity helping orphans in Kibaale, Uganda. Vim is so-called charity ware; users are encouraged to make a donation, which goes directly to a good cause. It's an interesting concept, and it seems to work for ICCF Holland: a fair amount of the charity's income comes from Vim users.

A good starting point for finding out more about ICCF's work is the video embedded here (if you don't have Flash installed you may want to download the movie). The ICCF website contains lots more information, including interesting reports from its treasurer, Bram Moolenaar - who also happens to be the author of Vim.

If you're interested in Vim the obvious place to start is the Vim website. That said, if you're using Linux or Mac OS X you may want to dive into the terminal and enter vimtutor for a relatively short (but comprehensive) tutorial.

New prices for anti-junk mail goodies

nospam@example.com (Junk Buster) — Thu, 03 May 2012 13:00:12 +0100

As the price of a first class stamp has gone up from 46p to 60p - an increase of 30% - I've had to review the prices I'm charging for the anti-junk mail stickers and other goodies I'm selling via the sticker shop on the Stop Junk Mail website.

It's not all bad news. For letterbox stickers I was charging £1 per sticker plus 50p for postage and packaging. I've increased the postage fee to 60p but at the same time reduced the price of stickers to just 90p. In other words, if you buy a sticker you still pay £1.50. And, if you buy more than one sticker you'll pay less. Buying two stickers, for instance, used to cost (2 x £1 + 50p =) £2.50. This is now (2 x 90p + 60p =) £2.40.

Other prices have gone up. The return to sender stamper can only be sent as a packet, and Royal Mail has increased the price for sending small packages from £1.97 to £2.70. I've therefore increased the postage fee from £2.00 to £2.70.

A word about Royal Mail's price increases, then? I'm actually not too bothered about it. Many online sellers have complained about the new prices, but then quite a few sellers out there charge postage fees that are completely disproportionate to what they pay Royal Mail. This is much more damaging for online trading then the increase in stamp prices.

Re-registering with Mailing Preference Service no longer needed

nospam@example.com (Junk Buster) — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:01:00 +0100

That's right the Mailing Preference Service no longer automatically de-registers people after five years time. If you sign up to the opt-out scheme for unsolicited addressed junk mail you'll now be opted out until the end of time.

It's a change that makes sense. I don't think anyone ever contacts the Direct Marketing Association to ask if they can please receive more unsolicited mail. It's only fair, therefore, to assume that registrants want to opt out for as long as possible. The burden of contacting the organisation should be with those who no longer want to be registered, not with the people who want to remain opted out.

What was particularly offending about the old policy was that the Direct Marketing Association used to de-register people in secret. After the five year registration period your details would be automatically deleted from the database. They would not let you know that they had done so, let alone that they would ask if you perhaps wanted to remain opted out.

Is the Mailing Preference Service biased?

In short, it was a policy designed to limit the take up of the Mailing Preference Service. The change (which, as per usual, has not been formally announced / explained) indicates that the Direct Marketing Association slowly starts to recognise that it at least has to pretend it supports your right to receive the mail you want (the slogan of the Mailing Preference Service). Showing too much bias only leads to organisations such as Consumer Focus setting up websites such as Stay Private (which, as you may know, not only allows people to register with various opt-out schemes in one go but also gives people the option to automatically renew registrations).

Anyway, it's an improvement, and another Manifesto item I can tick off the list.

What to make of PaperKarma

nospam@example.com (Junk Buster) — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:22:55 +0000

If you live in the States, have a smartphone, and agree that unsolicited mail is a pest then this may be for you.

A company called Readabl has come up with an app that may help reduce junk mail. The concept behind PaperKarma is simple enough: after downloading the app and submitting your personal details (name, address, e-mail address, and phone number) you can start taking photos of junk mail you want to stop. Uploaded images are run against a database, and if the sender can be identified the app will send the offender an e-mail asking to take your details off its mailing list.

There are some obvious practical issues (is the database being kept up to date, do senders respect the requests, etc.) but it's a nice idea, and something that's bound to be introduced in the UK.

Or is it?

Personally, I'm not overly impressed. What's wrong with spending a couple of minutes reading up on how to stop junk mail yourself? Call me old-fashioned, but I find it somewhat ironic that people downloading the app in an attempt to reduce junk mail are at the same time handing over their personal details to a company that doesn't even have a proper website. Unsolicited mail is usually the result of exposing your personal details to potential junk mailers. Wouldn't it better to encourage people to be a bit more vigilant with their personal data?

Whether or not Readabl / PaperKarma can be trusted with your personal details I don't know. What seems clear, though, it that Readabl / PaperKarma is hoping to make money. The app's page on the iTunes site states that it will be free for a limited period only, and the page with privacy information on the PaperKarma website talks about a paper to digital conversion program. This concept has already been introduced in the UK by the Green Preference Service - a company presenting itself as being 'anti-junk mail' (though primarily interested in selling people's personal details).

What doesn't convince me either is that the presentation of the PaperKarma product is far from professional. The two paragraphs of text on the PaperKarma home page, for instance, are riddled with errors:

PaperKarma allows you to take photos of the junk mail you wish to stop [Do I really need PaperKarma for that?]. Snap a photo, and you're done [No you're not].

We automatically contact the Mailer [proper noun?] and remove you from their [its!] distribution list [No you're not - you put in a request for someone to be removed]. PaperKarma can stop most junk mail that is addressed directly [as opposed to indirectly?] to you.

Or, take this promotional image from the above-mentioned iTunes page:

Anyway, our junk mail hating friends at the other side of the Pond can download the app for their iPhones, Androids, and Windows phones.

Royal Mail admits and drops misleading claim about junk mail

nospam@example.com (Junk Buster) — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:25:20 +0000

In case you were wondering… the Stop Junk Mail campaign still exists. Working full time (mostly six days a week) is taking its toll but I'm still spending a fair amount of my spare time battling unsolicited dung. What's more, a couple of people have recently offered to help with the campaign. This is needed more than ever, and it has already achieved something: Royal Mail has today confirmed that its claim that the company distributes 'only' 25% of all unaddressed mail is complete nonsense.

For the uninitiated, I'm talking about the Door-to-Door Opt-Out, Royal Mail's opt-out scheme for unaddressed mail items delivered by the postman. Royal Mail distributes a fair amount of leaflets, and there are heaps of people that are not interested in all that crap. However, rather than simply not delivering leaflets to households with a 'No Junk Mail' sign Royal Mail has decided that people not interested in unsolicited leaflets should sign up to an opt-out scheme.

One of the many issues with the opt-out scheme is that Royal Mail discourages people from registering. When you request an opt-out form (phone 01865 796 964 or use Junk Buster) the company will warn you that you may miss all sorts of important information if you opt out. On top of that they used to advise that registering won't do much to reduce junk mail because Royal Mail only delivers about 25% of the total volume of unaddressed mail in the UK. In other words, you may as well not bother.

I've always maintained that the figure of 25% is misleading and probably (and wrongly) includes inserts in free newspapers. In response to a Freedom of Information request - made by one of the people kindly helping out with the campaign - Royal Mail has now confirmed the figure was indeed misleading.

Commercially sensitive!?

Getting an honest response from Royal Mail was, let's say, a challenge. The request was submitted on 2 December last year and asked for the following:

The year to which the statistic of 25% relates.
The total volume of unaddressed mail used in the calculation.
The total volume of unaddressed mail distributed by Royal Mail used in the calculation.
The source of the data used in the calculation (in particular the source of the data used to estimate the volume of unaddressed mail distributed by other distributors).
The definition of 'unaddressed mail' used in the calculation (i.e. does the definition include items such as inserts, unsolicited directories, and free newspapers).

In its response Royal Mail stated that data about the total volume of unaddressed mail is available on the world wide web and that statistics about how much unaddressed mail is distributed by the company is too commercially sensitive to be revealed. The two statements are, of course, irreconcilable. If data about the total volume of unaddressed mail is publicly available then any idiot can figure out how much unaddressed mail is distributed by Royal Mail: 25% of the total volume.

Royal Mail is very sorry

The appeal was successful. Royal Mail has confirmed that the data about the total volume of unaddressed mail came from the Direct Marketing Association - and they've also acknowledged that this information is only available to members of the junk mail lobby group. At the same time Royal Mail has recognised that data about how much unaddressed mail is distributed by Royal Mail is not all commercially sensitive. So here we have it; finally the British public is allowed to know how much leaflets are distributed in the UK, and how many of them are pushed through the door by the Royal Mail.

Year	Total (m.)	RM (m.)	RM (%)
2003	11,880	2,997	25
2004	12,220	2,830	23
2005	13,045	3,354	26
2006	11,962	3,434	29
2007	11,232	3,088	27
2009	9,929	2,989	30

Interestingly, Royal Mail states in its response that the total volumes are based solely on surveys amongst members of the Direct Marketing Association. In other words, the data comes from a biased source and doesn't include all the leaflets distributed by companies that are not a member of the Association (as far as the Direct Marketing Association is concerned take-away menus don't exist).

Another problem with the figures for the total volume of unaddressed junk mail is that they do indeed include inserts in free newspapers. It's for this reason that I suspect Royal Mail's share of the leaflet business is likely to be around 50%. In 2008, Royal Mail distributed roughly 2.2 leaflets to the average household* per week. It's probably fair to say the average (weekly) free newspaper comes with three or four inserts. What we're looking at, then, is a simple accounting trick aimed at persuading you that your postie really doesn't deliver that much junk mail (and that you might as well not sign up to the Door-to-Door Opt-Out.

Finally, the Freedom of Information request has achieved something else. The claim that Royal Mail distributes 'only' 25% of all unaddressed mail has been removed from its website. So you see… the campaign is still very much alive.

* Calculated as (2,989,000,000 leaflets / 25,800,000 households) / 52.

Apparently, there's one born every minute

nospam@example.com (Junk Buster) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:03:06 +0000

Here's an e-mail I received in response to an article about stopping doorstep sellers:

Please stop being so degrading about direct selling. Your article unfortunately comes across as rather ignorant considering cold calling is absolutely essential for any business to ever go anywhere. all you are doing is provoking slander and hate against very honest, open and happy people who are trying to make a living using the skills God gave them. Without selling of this nature the world would grind to a stand still.

The first good deed in 2012

nospam@example.com (Junk Buster) — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:55:56 +0000

After writing the junk mail annual for 2011 it seems appropriate to say something about the year ahead.

The main thing to note is that I'll have considerable less time to spend on Stop Junk Mail. For the next couple of months I'll be working full time rather than part time in my 'proper' job (the one that helps pay the bills). It's rather unfortunate, as there are likely to be a number of interesting developments in the world of junk mail and as I got enough on the 'to do' list as it is. I'm hoping to keep the website going but have no idea how things will work out.

In a way having less time may be a good thing. If anything, it forces you to just get on with things. For instance, while writing the above-mentioned junk mail annual I decided I should pick up on two issues that have long since annoyed me: the Government's failure to respond to its own consultation about the future of the edited electoral register (which junk mailers still use as a cheap and convenient junk mail list) and the website of the All-Party Group on Junk Mail (which is used to promote a particular junk mail company, despite the fact that the Group no longer exists). And so I've done my first good deed this year; I fired off an e-mail to my local MP:

Dear Mr Wright,

I am writing to you concerning two junk mail related issues; the public consultation on the future of the edited electoral register and the website of the (no longer existing) All-Party Group on Junk Mail.

In February 2010 I responded to a public consultation on the future of the edited version of the electoral register. As you will know, the consultation was organised after the Information Commissioner had recommended abolishing the register in July 2008. It took the Government of the day more than a year to announce the consultation, and it is now more than 18 months since Government was supposed to respond to the consultation.

It seems clear Government is trying to kick the issue in the long grass. I find this an insult to all the people who took part in the consultation. I spent about three days on my own contribution. To not even receive an apology for Government's failure to respond to its own consultation comes across as highly arrogant.

I am not sure if there is any point in passing my comments to the relevant minister / department - looking at the page listing closed consultations that are awaiting a response on the website of the Ministry of Justice it seems it is quite common for Government to organise consultations only to ignore all the people who responded. However, it might be an idea for Government to look at how it communicates with the public in these cases. For instance, sending a letter clarifying why no response is forthcoming seems a polite thing to do. Ignoring people who take part in public consultations is just rude.

The second issue I wish to raise is the website of the former All-Party Group on Junk Mail. In 2009 I had sent a couple of e-mails to the Group about the information in its so-called 'Junk Mail Toolkit'. I never received a response, and learned in January 2010 that the Group was no longer listed on the Register of All-Party Groups.

My concern about the 'Toolkit' is that the information it contains is factually incorrect, incomplete and biased. In particular, it refers people to four opt-out schemes for junk mail, two of which are commercial opt-out schemes run by the Read Group Plc - which happens to be the company that also provided the secretariat of the Group.

I doubt it is correct for an All-Party Group to promote particular commercial interests. What concerns me more, though, is that the Read Group has decided to keep the Group's website (apg-junkmail.org.uk) online. To the average visitor it is not at all clear that the Group has ceased to exist, yet no MP or Lord has control over the content of the website. The fact that I did not get a response after contacting the Group reflects poorly not only on the MPs and Lords that are (were) members of the Group, but on Parliament as a whole. Yet, it was in fact the Read Group that failed to respond to my e-mails. Apparently, the company not only provided the secretariat of the Group but also acted as censor.

I am not sure what the rules for All-Party Groups are, but it seems appropriate that the Read Group is asked to take the website down.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,
Etc.

My guess is the e-mail will be forwarded to the relevant Government departments, which in turn will politely ignore the issues raised. Even so, at least it gave me the opportunity to talk about them on this blog. Maybe it's now up to others to do something with it…

The year in junk mail (2011)

nospam@example.com (Junk Buster) — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:15:00 +0000

The last day of 2011 - time to reflect on another year of campaigning. Instead of giving the usual chronological overview I'll this time pick out a number of 'Hot Junk Mail Topics'.

Industry propaganda

I'm never sure if the way the junk mail industry runs its opt-out schemes for junk mail is a hilarious insult to people's intelligence or simply shameless propaganda. In any case, thanks to Stop Junk Mail the schemes became a little more customer-friendly in 2011.

Royal Mail made a couple of improvements to the way it's operating and advertising the Door-to-Door Opt-Out. Not only has the company given up its attempt to keep the phone number for the opt-out scheme secret (the number to call is 01865 796964), it has also set up an e-mail address which people can use if they have queries about their registration. It's a very long e-mail address:

door_to_door_ops_admin@royalmail.com

To request an opt-out form you can still send an e-mail to optout@royalmail.com.

Royal Mail's web page with information about the opt-out scheme can finally be found via its online Shepherd's Wife, and just a couple of days ago the company removed the claim that it 'only' distributes 25% of all unaddressed mail from the same page (which I'll have more to say about in the new year). The first was the result of regularly ridiculing the company's PR strategy, the second of a Freedom of Information request.

The Mailing Preference Service also removed a misleading and unsubstantiated claim from its website in 2011. For years the Direct Marketing Association told the public that signing up the scheme reduces personally addressed advertising mail by "up to 95%". After making a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority the junk mailers finally agreed to be more realistic about how much junk mail the scheme can prevent.

Paper directories

My prediction for 2011 was that publishers of paper directories would make it easier for people to cancel unwanted phone books. I was wrong, although some progress has been made.

The Yellow Pages for the first time published information about opting out in its directory and changed its greenwash strategy; in April the company killed the woodland mini beast Kirk.

Thomson Local stopped the production of the rather silly 'No Thomson Local' door sticker but, to its credit, remains the only directory publisher to send a confirmation letter to people opt out of receiving its directory.

BT seemed to be on the right track. The company followed Yell's lead by mentioning its opt-out scheme in the latest edition of the phone book. However, BT then made a fresh attempt at preventing people from cancelling the delivery of the phone book by retrospectively demanding that people give the company their phone number. The Information Commissioner's Office agreed this was a breach of the Data Protection Act and asked BT to review its policy.

Stickers and other goodies

After I reluctantly introduced 'No Junk Mail' stickers to the shop in 2010, I decided to redesign the good old 'No/No' and 'No/Yes' stickers. Equally nice is the 'Addressed Mail Only' sticker I introduced in November.

Also new in the shop is the return to sender stamper. I'm not that enthusiastic about the original product, as I've explained in a vlog, but combined with a (short) paper copy of the Guide to Stamping Out Junk Mail and one of the above-mentioned stickers it's another nice product.

Since July, Stop Junk Mail is donating 10% of the sales to good causes. The first cause was Adblock Plus, the second SOS Children's Villages. The cause for the next three months will be announced shortly.

Junk mail in the media

For no apparent reason junk mail got much more media coverage than it normally gets. It started with a story in the Daily Fascist. According to the tabloid Royal Mail is seeking to deliver 15 leaflets per week to the average household. As you would expect from a tabloid, the figure is wide off the mark.

In February, the Independent picked up on the (old) story that the Mailing Preference Service / Direct Marketing Association refuses to send people registration forms in the post because they want to save paper. "One of the finest pot/kettle examples of our time" indeed.

BBC Panorama covered both junk mail and scam mail in July. In my opinion the programme was rather poor. Much more informative was That's Britain's take on junk mail, in November.

Which? Magazine also covered junk mail in November. I was given the honour to act as junk mail expert, and wrote an article for the Which? 'convo blog' about self-regulation by the junk mail industry.

Website

New in 2011 was the Royal Junk Mail Catablog. The aim of the blog is to investigate how much "important information" is distributed via Royal Mail's door-to-door scheme. A year on, I can now tell you that of the (exactly) 100 pieces of unaddressed junk mail I received from the postman in 2011 only five could be classified as 'information'. As an aside, the fact that I got 'only' 100 leaflets from the postman this year is quite interesting in itself, given that Royal Mail aims to increase the amount of unaddressed mail it distributes (apparently the target is six leaflets per household per week - and not 15 as suggested by the Fascist).

More importantly, the Stop Junk Mail website has been redesigned. Most of the issues I talked about on this blog still need to be addressed. In particular, having only a small number of items in the main navigation bar isn't ideal. Still, I reckon it's an improvement over the old website (which you can still view in the UK Web Archive).

Politics

Once again Government didn't bother to respond to its own public consultation about the future of the Edited Electoral Register. The consultation closed on 23 February 2010, and a response was due on 18 May 2010. That's politics for you…

Sometimes the inertia of MPs is a good thing. I was pleased to find that the All-Party Group on Junk Mail has ceased to exist. As you'd expect, the members of group didn't bother telling the public why the decision to abolish the group was taken, and they've allowed the junk mail company that provided the secretariat of the group to continue to use the website as a propaganda tool. Still, it's good to see the junk mail industry can no longer dictate MPs what to think and say.

Another sign that politicians have become less willing to do as they're told by the junk mail industry is the latest 'responsibility deal' between Defra and the junk mail industry. Although the deal is by no means as good as suggested by the mainstream media it certainly looks more promising than previous agreements. And, I'm pleased to say a number of things I had suggested to Defra have been included in the agreement. In particular, from April 2012 the two opt-out schemes for unaddressed junk mail will be merged and from the same month you should finally be able to register online with the new-style opt-out scheme (via the website of the Mailing Preference Service). As always, the devil is in the detail - only last week I found that there will be separate registration processes for the opt-out schemes, for instance. Still, compared with the previous deal (which introduced the Your Choice Dummy Scheme) it's a lot more ambitious.

Appreciating the desire for a simple comprehensive opt-out scheme

nospam@example.com (Junk Buster) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:23:06 +0000

I've today received a large stack of papers from Defra about the 'direct mail responsibility deal'. Late November I submitted a Freedom of Information request asking for the release of all correspondence between Defra and representatives of the direct marketing sector relating to the agreement. Although I don't seem to have receive all correspondence it's plenty of information to take in. It's good to see Freedom of Information requests aren't always rejected (I've had less luck trying to get information from Royal Mail - more about that some other time).

The papers sitting on my desk are mainly copies of e-mails and PowerPoint presentations. Defra has had various meetings with the junk mail industry - primarily with the Direct Marketing Association - but at no point did it occur to anyone sitting at the table that you're supposed to take minutes of meetings. I was actually already aware no minutes existed as I had spoken with Defra about the responsibility deal in May this year. In fact, one of the suggestions I made at the meeting was making future discussions about the voluntary agreement more transparent. I can't see why the general public isn't allowed to know which issues are (and aren't) discussed; where different parties have different opinions; and what arguments are being put forward.

At some point I'm hoping to publish the information I've received in a more or less digestible format. For now I'll just pick out some of the more interesting stuff…

The discussions about the latest responsibility deal started in August 2010. On 17 August 2010 Simon Dawes, Policy Advisor for Defra, sent a paper with initial thoughts on areas of focus for a revised VA [ voluntary agreement, JB ]. Amongst the potential actions listed in the document were designing appropriately worded 'no junk mail' stickers and linking / merging the Your Choice Preference Scheme and Door-to-Door Opt-Out. Both were things I'd suggested in an e-mail I'd sent to Simon Dawes in June 2010.

In his response, Alex Walsh of the Direct Marketing Association stated Defra's paper appeared very useful with only a few areas that might cause some of our members concern. One of these areas must have been Defra's hint at setting up a sticker scheme; after 17 August 2010 'No Junk Mail' signs aren't mentioned anymore. Interestingly, the Environment Secretary did talk about 'No Junk Mail' signs when she announced the details of the responsibility deal on 1 November. Here's what she said:

"[This agreement also] throws down the gauntlet to those companies hand delivering brochures and fast food menus to respect 'no junk mail' signs and only deliver what people want."

To be sure, there's absolutely nothing in the final agreement about 'No Junk Mail' signs. Still, the issue hasn't been wiped off the agenda completely.

The idea to link or merge the Your Choice scheme and Door-to-Door Opt-Out received a more positive response. Matthew Neilson ('Head of Specialised Marketing' for Royal Mail), for instance, welcomed the opportunity to better understand areas of particular frustration for government and consumers and said Royal Mail's Door-to-Door team recognised it had much to learn from Defra. However, an idea to include free local newspapers in the new opt-out scheme for unaddressed mail never got anywhere. An e-mail dated 10 December 2010 mentions that the Direct Marketing Association had asked the Newspaper Society if they were interested in getting involved with the opt-out scheme and that they were reluctant (naturally, the e-mail doesn't mention why).

That the Direct Marketing Association didn't manage to persuade the Newspaper Society to get on board doesn't come as a surprise. Nowhere in the correspondence has the junk mail group anything upbeat to say about the new opt-out scheme for unaddressed junk mail. I suspect they accepted the idea on the condition that Defra would shut up about 'No Junk Mail' signs. In any case, it's clear the opt-out scheme worries the Direct Marketing Association. Here's what Alex Walsh wrote to Defra on 15 June 2011:

"As I said on the phone we would not want to have a single opt out [sic] scheme that covered [sic] both Addressed [sic] and Unaddressed Mail [sic]. Although I can appreciate the desire for a simple comprehensive scheme they are completely discrete media channels - just because you don't want addressed mail doesn't mean that you don't want unaddressed mail and vice versa. We see it exactly the same as the difference between the Telephone Preference Service and the Mailing Preference Service and if people wish to opt out of both addressed and unaddressed mail they will have to register separately for the 2 [sic] schemes.

"As I mentioned on the phone this is a matter of principle for us and I hope that doesn't become a sticking point for progressing [sic] the agreement."

Can you spot the fallacy? Yep… the reason you'll have to register twice if you want to reduce both addressed and unaddressed advertisements is that not everybody will want to stop both types of unsolicited mail.

Convinced?

Defra should maybe have pointed out that it's perfectly possible to give people the choice to register with either one of the opt-out schemes or both. This is what Junk Buster and Stay Private have been doing for some time now, and nobody has ever complained that these websites have made reducing unwanted mail too easy. But then it's obvious the Direct Marketing Assocation's real "point of principle" is this: they feel that opting out shouldn't be made easy.

Voluntary responsibility deals are always a compromise between industry lobby groups and the Government, and Defra decided that the fact that from April 2012 householders will finally be able to sign up to opt-out schemes for unaddressed junk mail online was a decent compromise. Whether it was remains to be seen. It's not yet clear, for instance, whether or not you will actually be able to register online next year. As far as Defra is concerned that's what has been agreed but the Direct Marketing Association hasn't yet announced any details about the new opt-out process. It might be that the new website will only allow you to request an opt-out form online.