The text you're quoting has to do with how we distribute volume, NOT how we enable spammers. High volume campaigns does not equate to spamming. You can send a 10-email campaign that IS spam and a 10,000-email campaign that is NOT spam.
I hate this argument. People always resort to this type of argument when they want to divert responsibility. Have you ever heard of how the environment enables certain behaviors?
Supporting a system where people can mass-send emails = enabling spam.
How absurd will you extend this argument? "Oh, yeah, 99% of my customers are spammers, but I'm not the one making them click send! They could've just paid, twiddled their thumbs and not do anything with my product!"
This is effectively structuring for email. Would it be immoral to sell a system that allows people to bypass money laundering restrictions by automating structuring? I don't see how this is any different.
> High volume campaigns does not equate to spamming
In what instances is high volume not spam when using this service? Given one legitimate use case where a customer isn't better off using a cheap MailChimp account.
I used to run ops for a mailing list with over 1 million subscribers (all double-opt-in — perhaps you should google that?).
We never had to bother avoiding any of the measures you deliberately subvert, because our mail was all legitimate.
Granted, doing a 'mail run' with that volume took about a week, but whatever.
If your (client's) recipients aren't all double-opt in, then what you're running could very easily be seen as irresponsible (and that's me being polite), no matter how much money it's making.
