Slashdot Mirror

If I recall correctly, Warner has a significant marketshare and tends to be the "market leader". Also, it tried to fix prices on certain Three Tenors recordings. That might be why they're on a short leash. Surely, if the subpoenas lead to anything, others will also get supoenas.

80% of spam in the US is sent by Windows PCs that have been infected by an Outlook worm and converted into a zombie spambot. So an idiot customer at my cable ISP shares an IP block with me and his Windows spambot causes my email to be blocked? That's fair.

Why is your ISP not complying with the FTC's request to block port 25 as part of Operation Spam Zombies? I'm sick and tired of dealing with spam from infected home PCs. If you don't have a need to run a mail server, then you don't need port 25 open to the rest of the net.

A Windows spambot with a cable ISP connection can send A LOT of spam. High bandwidth providers need to run software that detects spam (an outgoing spam filter) and shut down a user before a huge volume of spam can be sent. But the ISPs have largely taken the attitude that sending spam is not their problem.

And when they end up on SPEWS and customers start complaining, then they will probably change their attitude.

You can forward your spam to the FTC by forwarding your mail to spam@uce.gov

From http://www.ftc.gov/spam/

If you get spam email that you think is deceptive, forward it to spam@uce.gov. The FTC uses the spam stored in this database to pursue law enforcement actions against people who send deceptive email.

The forward button has never been so fun! Now if only it could be something like that joke-commercial for what happens when you send an error report on Windows after a program fails. For those who haven't seen it (I can't find a link, I'm sorry), when a program crashes you send an error report and it finds out who's fault the error was if it was a programmer in Redmond, and if so you get to choose a form of quick torture that is controlled by the programmer's chair.

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/

Also, if you think that the site violates Federal laws, you could report it to the FTC (they even have an online form) directly, or to the FBI.

Also, if you think that the site violates Federal laws, you could report it to the FTC (they even have an online form) directly, or to the FBI.

OK, You are wrong

Adobe didn't have any choice about FreeHand, since Aldus didn't own it and the company that did (Altsys, note spelling) had a no-compete clause. As I recall, though, Adobe forced Aldus to revalue the deal after they learned they weren't going to get FreeHand as part of it, so presumably they originally intended to sell FreeHand alongside Illustrator, at least for a while.

Had the no-compete clause not been in effect, Adobe would proably still have had to divest FreeHand, since the FTC got involved -- see http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1995/12/aba.htm. This page actually implies that it was the FTC ruling rather than Altsys's contract that forced the issue, but I'm pretty sure that Altsys was already in the process of suing Aldus at the time.

-- Curtis

You do have an alternative (assuming you're in the U.S. buying a game from a B&M merchant within 50 miles of your home).

Pay with a credit card. If you have a game that won't run acceptably due to intrusive protection, take it to the store and ask them to take it back. Sure, they'll refuse. But now you have "tried in good faith to settle the problem with the merchant."

Now send a letter to your credit card company stating the problem, and that you have tried unsuccessfully to solve it with the merchant, and that in accordance with the Fair Credit Billing Act, you dispute the charge. You will very likely get a refund. Even if you don't, you've cost that merchant a fee and another hit against his merchant account's reputation that's going to make him think twice before refusing such a return or stocking that manufacturer's wares in the future.

Here's the form for submitting a complaint to the
Federal Trade Commission:

https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_C ODE=PU01

Do it now! If you are legitimately outraged, provide your real information.
Describe the problem in layman's terms. Be professional.
Inundate them with complaints.

He needs to start by contacting the three big credit agencies and alert them to potential identity theft this will make opening a new CC or any new line of credit more difficult with only his SSN.

Contact info:
# Equifax: 1-800-525-6285; www.equifax.com; P.O. Box 740241, Atlanta, GA 30374-0241
# Experian: 1-888-EXPERIAN (397-3742); www.experian.com; P.O. Box 9532, Allen, TX 75013
# TransUnion: 1-800-680-7289; www.transunion.com; Fraud Victim Assistance Division, P.O. Box 6790, Fullerton, CA 92834-6790

More information about what to do is at the FTC's website
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/idtheft mini.htm

Please check out the section titled: "IDENTITY THEFT VICTIMS: IMMEDIATE STEPS". Tell him not to wait on this ... get on it immediately because the theives will as well.

Samsung admitted guilt because the US DOJ had there ass in a sling and was about to hit them with Billion dollar penalties and jail time for many of their executives if they didn't plead guilty (as opposed to the hundreds of millions and likely jail time they did get.) Infineon pled guilty in this case and the DOJ still jailed 5 of their executives (even the Enron guys didn't go to jail - yet) Imagine what the penalties would have been if they hadn't pled guilty. Micron is the "stool pigeon" in all this - they are negotiating an better deal by turning state's evidence on their competitiors - though their deal has yet to be worked out.

While we're at it, for all the ignorant posts about RMBS submarining the industry with patents and other alleged actions, take a look at another case - the FTC held the longest trial in it's history to prosecute Rambus on those charges. At the end of it, the judge, the senior judge, and AN FTC EMPLOYEE, Made a 300 page ruling in which he enumerated 12 reasons why Rambus was NOT GUILTY of any of the charges leveled against them. Before you go believing the PR of convicted felons you might want to read the reasoned opinions of a federal ALJ. http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/040223initialde cision.pdf

https://rn.ftc.gov/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE= PU01 Bring this whole debacle to the FTC's attention. Innundate them with requests so they'll be forced to take action.

From http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/baitads-gd.htm:

"Sec. 238.0 Bait advertising defined.1

Bait advertising is an alluring but insincere offer to sell a product or service which the advertiser in truth does not intend or want to sell. Its purpose is to switch consumers from buying the advertised merchandise, in order to sell something else, usually at a higher price or on a basis more advantageous to the advertiser. The primary aim of a bait advertisement is to obtain leads as to persons interested in buying merchandise of the type so advertised.

Sec. 238.1 Bait advertisement.

No advertisement containing an offer to sell a product should be published when the offer is not a bona fide effort to sell the advertised product. [Guide 1]

Sec. 238.2 Initial offer.
        (a) No statement or illustration should be used in any advertisement which creates a false impression of the grade, quality, make, value, currency of model, size, color, usability, or origin of the product offered, or which may otherwise misrepresent the product in such a manner that later, on disclosure of the true facts, the purchaser may be switched from the advertised product to another.

        (b) Even though the true facts are subsequently made known to the buyer, the law is violated if the first contact or interview is secured by deception."

If an ISP (as in P stands for Provider), they can't filter/block access to anything and still sell 'Internet Service.' To do so means they become a Publisher, since they're controlling what you can access (I think AOL fits into this role in certain aspects), and that's a bundle of liability to make many companies tread lightly. If I buy service from a company offering 'Internet' access, I have a reasonable expectation that any IP based technology will work with it, be it software I run on my computer, or an off the shelf consumer device designed to work with the Internet. Companies providing bundled services need to step lightly on this subject. Selling me 'Internet' access, blocking VOIP transit, and offering a comparable VOIP service (for a fee, of course), is asking for trouble.

CIX Problems

Best,
url
the bounty network.com

Using demand drafts, someone could take money from your account without your written authorization. Here's a nice description of the problem: http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/ddraft.htm

However, this info is 10 years old. Does anyone know what's happened to banking law in the meantime?

No, but you CAN apply the CAN-SPAM act, which is aptly named.

WOW, This makes me wish there was a law to protect me from this sort of thing. They could call it the Fair Credit Reporting Act

Oh, wait there is already such a law. It defines what these agencies are allowed to report and what they are not allowed to report. It also says how long somethings(bankruptcy,e tc.) can be reported.

From the FCA: (a) Information excluded from consumer reports. Except as authorized under subsection (b) of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information: (1) Cases under title 11 [United States Code] or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be, antedate the report by more than 10 years. (2) Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period. (3) Paid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven years. (4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years.(1) (5) Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years.1

Now, if you have proof of this double file being used as you say it is then report and let's see someone go to jail.

The law of which I was referring to is the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. This law requires any pacakge which bears a label to be statistically accurate. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fplajump.html

However, you raise an interesting point. According to the FTC website, your PVC pipe is not covered by the FPLA. It would be considered a durable good. But most likely would be governeted by the wieghts and measures laws of whatever state you live in.

Now here is the clencher where my argument can fail -- according to the FTC a durable good is not covered by the purvue of the Fair Packaing and Labeling Act. Does a computer qualify as a durable good? I would argue that the life of a computer is less than three years. By definition a non-durable good is one that will have a life that is less than three years. Then to throw in for some real fun, stating that the Mac-Mini is a low-cost, and is not a very powerful computer, therefore has a lower life-time, is a non-durable good. While a high-end computer might become a durable good by virtue of the fact that it is on the bleeding edge of technology and not on the end of production life.

I think you're stuck in a black and white world because there is a lot more gray area in mine evidently. To say that nobody is getting punished is shortsighted. The average consumer *is* getting bent because....why shouldn't they be allowed to record off of XM? People are *paying money* to listen to satellite radio. Stations buy the rights to play songs. If the consumer wishes to record a song what's the harm here? The station paid for the rights, the consumer paid their subscription fee , what's the big deal? I mean, I used to record off the radio onto tape all the time growing up and radio is free if you ignore the value of your time spent listening to commercials.

It comes right back around to XM/satellite being digital and the quality of the music being recorded is much higher than the "old" analog FM radio system. It's a bunch of bullshit. Screw progress, why don't we all just go back to records? They're the perfect medium for the RIAA because they're difficult to reproduce and wear out. Think of the cash they could make on people buying new records. This of course flys in the face of what you're actually purchasing, the right to listen to the music or the medium on which it is stored...which is it RIAA...which is it?

Your laws govern how I drive comment is weak. Here again there is some gray area you can't ignore. How pissed off would vehicle owners be if manufacturers wouldn't honor warranty work if the owner had slightly modified their cars? Oh wait, they'd be pissed off enough to get congress to pass the laws like this. This is called consumer protection, something sorely lacking these days.

Your last comment about me building a house and getting it stolen does not apply here. You tell me the difference between recording XM radio vs. FM radio without giving me the antiprogress bullshit of the source being digital in the case of XM radio and I might start to understand where you're coming from.

On warranties: a quick google search came up with http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/warran ty.htm. What I gather from a quick perusal of that site is that the warranty is a promise on the part of the manufacturer. It isn't an agreement made between two parties. If you don't provide a warranty, you must explicity state so. That's what the EULA does. But that doesn't really mean you've agreed to anything just because you clicked on it.

According to this "If the call is really for the sole purpose of conducting a survey, it is not covered. Only telemarketing calls are covered -- that is, calls that solicit sales of goods or services. Callers purporting to take a survey, but also offering to sell goods or services, must comply with the National Do Not Call Registry.

Side note - I still get a ton of calls and I have been on the list for about 3 months now.

According to http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/dncbiza lrt.htm
section 19, at $15,400 PER national marketer PER year, its not a bad deal... for the government.

Telephone surveyors are exempt.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/dncalrt .htm

You're missing my point, which is simply that any any communications device can be misused.

Also, current law already provides that harassment, via telephone or otherwise, is not allowed.

One call might not constitute harassment. Eight or ten calls in a day from various marketers could produce a cumulative effect that feels very much like harassment.

Check this out:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/08/dncstatment.htm

The FTC says that on August 18, they registered the 100 millionth number on the U.S. "do not call" list. Wow, just think about it. 100 million people who don't want to be called. That's about one-third the population of the U.S. It's significantly more votes than any single candidate received in the presidential election.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on why so many people have signed up.

There's a definite market for a caller ID box that could verify incoming numbers against known lists of telemarketers. The box could update its list via modem while the phone is offline.

There's always going to be a way around that kind of technical solution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they already have devices that can "spoof" incoming numbers that appear on the recipient's caller ID?

Besides, why should I have to buy extra equipment? And most likely pay a subscription fee to update the blacklist? No thanks.

Alternatively, make unlisted numbers free; make it a misdemeanor to place an unsolicited call to an unlisted number.

Well, there you go bringing the government into it.

oops, quite right, I checked the ftc's website and found "The National Do Not Call Registry is only for personal phone numbers. Business-to-business calls and faxes are not covered by the National Do Not Call Registry." link here

Read the FAQ at donotcall.gov:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/dncalrt .htm

Specifically, point # 14 clearly states that busines to business calls are not protected.

Telemarketing is just another job

You're telling me that scamming vulnerable and trusting elderly folks into buying stuff they don't need or making dodgy investments is 'just another job'?

This article is telling me that somehow, completely independently of one another, every major record label suddenly decided to make apple change their pricing model to the exact same thing at the exact same time? I don't think so. These labels are not in competition at all.

If, as you suggest, the labels did not independently arrive at their demands upon Apple, and instead had an agreement to make such demands, they've engaged in price fixing, which is NOT capitalistic and IS illegal.

Second, the variation in pricing has to do with contracts between doctors and the insurance. As in the insurance will say that we will not pay more than X dollars for this product or this service and this number will varry by insurance. In order to bill the insurance the doctor must agree to these terms or not bill the insurance. Any doctor is free to do that but would then have to charge a patient directly and would thus lose out on potential business. This drop can be far greater the larger the insurance group, so large insurance groups can force doctors to lower their pricing.

Some doctors opt not to do this, so they will not be listed in the insurances directory. They will then be free to charge as they see fit. Also, doctors can form groups and thus gain levarage over insurance companies for billing purposes. If members of a certain specialty in an area belong to a select number of groups, the insurance companies may pay higher prices or risk not having enough qualified physicians to service those they are covering.

btw, if you find this disturbing just think of this. In medicine, you often pay for procedures that fail. Could you imagine going to Lexus and them saying only 2 out of 5 cars will actually drive, but you can not test drive the cars and once purchased, there are no refunds, but they can service your new car for additional costs. That essentially happens with many services in medicine (although a big difference is that in medicine, not getting a procedure may be more detrimental than the 40% chance of failure)... anyway, just wanted to say that the medicine world really does operate by a seperate set of rules that may not be fair, but are not easily comparable to say just purchasing a watch (and you would not be purchasing this watch without good medical indication unless you like wasting money).

Second, the variation in pricing has to do with contracts between doctors and the insurance. As in the insurance will say that we will not pay more than X dollars for this product or this service and this number will varry by insurance. In order to bill the insurance the doctor must agree to these terms or not bill the insurance. Any doctor is free to do that but would then have to charge a patient directly and would thus lose out on potential business. This drop can be far greater the larger the insurance group, so large insurance groups can force doctors to lower their pricing.

Some doctors opt not to do this, so they will not be listed in the insurances directory. They will then be free to charge as they see fit. Also, doctors can form groups and thus gain levarage over insurance companies for billing purposes. If members of a certain specialty in an area belong to a select number of groups, the insurance companies may pay higher prices or risk not having enough qualified physicians to service those they are covering.

btw, if you find this disturbing just think of this. In medicine, you often pay for procedures that fail. Could you imagine going to Lexus and them saying only 2 out of 5 cars will actually drive, but you can not test drive the cars and once purchased, there are no refunds, but they can service your new car for additional costs. That essentially happens with many services in medicine (although a big difference is that in medicine, not getting a procedure may be more detrimental than the 40% chance of failure)... anyway, just wanted to say that the medicine world really does operate by a seperate set of rules that may not be fair, but are not easily comparable to say just purchasing a watch (and you would not be purchasing this watch without good medical indication unless you like wasting money).

No, I'm sorry but I don't think that 80 meg .pdf's of current regulations are actually "available" through dialup.

What 80 meg reg? How about Truth in Lending (TIL) - a law and regulations that every U.S. citizen has as a means to limit 3rd party control over their financial destiny?http://www.ftc.gov/

Or, how about the 10K & 8Q filings with the SEC? Want to know who is in charge of your least favorite business - or, who has insider information? Try http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml/ and see if you can learn anything of significance over a 56k connection.

Sec. 238.0 Bait advertising defined.1 Bait advertising is an alluring but insincere offer to sell a product or service which the advertiser in truth does not intend or want to sell. Its purpose is to switch consumers from buying the advertised merchandise, in order to sell something else, usually at a higher price or on a basis more advantageous to the advertiser. The primary aim of a bait advertisement is to obtain leads as to persons interested in buying merchandise of the type so advertised.

Since Microsoft has told developers not to rely on the HDD being there, it's clear that they aren't insincere about selling the $299 version, any more than Honda is insincere about selling a Civic versus a Accord. Take a deep breath and don't let the anti-MS paranoia get to you so much.

Mod parent up. Is a 3, should be a 5.

https://www.annualcreditreport.com/cra/index.jsp
seems to be a legit source? of free credit reports from the big 3.
Text of fair dept collection practice act:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm
http://www.fair-debt-collection.com/fair-debt-act. html

Here's a little flow diagram to help you sort out the debt validation process.

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebuild/debt_valid ation_workflow.shtml

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcrajump.htm

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpajump.htm

Electronic Credit Repair Kit (tm)
http://www.mix6.com/credit/

I would just send them a cease and desist letter. They are not going to bother to get a judgement in court for $12!
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=cease+and+desist &num=10&hl=en&c2coff=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=& as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=doc&as_qdr=a ll&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off

Here's a little flow diagram to help you sort out the debt validation process.

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebuild/debt_valid ation_workflow.shtml

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcrajump.htm

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpajump.htm

Electronic Credit Repair Kit (tm)
http://www.mix6.com/credit/

I would just send them a cease and desist letter. They are not going to bother to get a judgement in court for $12!
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=cease+and+desist &num=10&hl=en&c2coff=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=& as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=doc&as_qdr=a ll&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off

before anyone assumes this is bullshit, refer to the legislation referred:

(from http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm
)

(c) CEASING COMMUNICATION. If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except --

(1) to advise the consumer that the debt collector's further efforts are being terminated;

(2) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or

(3) where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy.

If such notice from the consumer is made by mail, notification shall be complete upon receipt.

In the case of business, it's a matter of law, so it's not my definition, but that of the United States.

As to your sports metaphor, look to wrestling and boxing. The reason they have weight classes is because a 110# boxer would get beaten to a pulp by a 220# boxer, no matter how good he was. They are required to compete separately.

Really, it's just basic journalism. Something slashdot clearly knows absolutely bupkus about.

Actually.... The FTC (I think) made it a requirement. If TW wanted to provide AOL over its cable network (in lue of RoadRunner) then they would also have to allow a handful of other competitors. This was all part of the AOL/Time Warner merger agreement

actually, if you want to OPT-OUT from ALL credit card offers:

you can call : 1-888-5-OPTOUT to get out of this, there is a website, they give it to you in the phone number, i did it 3 months ago, i barely get any now (tehy have to work you out of the system, some places have purchased your info from the credit bureaus like 3-4 months ago)

http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/protect.htm

This is not legal in the US, thanks to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Or does it seem like too many companies are losing data these days.
Now I can understand the thefts, the outright insider selling of data.
But come on, how do you lose 3.9 million accounts? This seems strange. This data, if it had to be shipped should have been encrypted as well. According to the Gramm-Leech Bliley act http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/glbact/ there are supposed to be provisions provided and setforth in such an event. Yet, we still read almost daily of some financial institution mishandling our data.
My question is, has this been an ongoing thing and we are just now becoming more aware of the problem, or is this type of careless concern what we can expect from our trusted banking institutions.

I believe government institutions are already covered under the privacy act. This probably isn't really targeted so much at small time contractors like nannies and whatnot. This is probably targeted at giant institutions where if they are found discarding one person's information, they'll probably be found discarding several people's. I haven't seen the wording on the actual law, but if the phrase The FTC can sue and obtain fines of up to $2,500 for each instance of neglect is interpreted such that each instance of neglect is each person's info that is found improperly discarded, that could be a lot of money. The kind of money that people get fired over.

True, it probably misses the big point of digital information currently being held, where easily millions of people's records can be stolen in one fell swoop, but it is at least a beginning.

Hmm... on further research, I found this document which outlines the actual text of the rule, along with comments. Some of the info isn't really helpfull outside of the context of the entire act.

I believe government institutions are already covered under the privacy act. This probably isn't really targeted so much at small time contractors like nannies and whatnot. This is probably targeted at giant institutions where if they are found discarding one person's information, they'll probably be found discarding several people's. I haven't seen the wording on the actual law, but if the phrase The FTC can sue and obtain fines of up to $2,500 for each instance of neglect is interpreted such that each instance of neglect is each person's info that is found improperly discarded, that could be a lot of money. The kind of money that people get fired over.

True, it probably misses the big point of digital information currently being held, where easily millions of people's records can be stolen in one fell swoop, but it is at least a beginning.

Hmm... on further research, I found this document which outlines the actual text of the rule, along with comments. Some of the info isn't really helpfull outside of the context of the entire act.

Never trust what a corporation says unless you get it in writing and notorised.

Several Credit Card companies, including CitiCard, will allow you to generate a one time use only virtual credit card number. CitiCard's is especially nice, because you can set a limit to how much can be charged to that number.

In the case of unauthorized use of your card, you should report the fraud to one of the major credit bureaus:

TransUnion: 800-888-4213
Equifax: 800-525-6285
Experian: 800-397-3742

While you're at it check out http://www.ftc.gov/ for more information about your rights in resolving credit card problems.

The article is quite vague. But I really think that Reuters is misunderstanding the details here and creating this inclarity. The FTC is not so stupid as to block port 25.

I immediately went to ftc.gov.
Here is a link to their actual press release:
http://ftc.gov/opa/2005/05/zombies.htm

They have a more detailed website at:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/spam/zombie/ index.htm

This site appears to be geared for the people who actually understand what's going on. The very first bullet point on the site states very clearly:
"block port 25 except for the outbound SMTP requirements of authenticated users of mail servers designed for client traffic. Explore implementing Authenticated SMTP on port 587 for clients who must operate outgoing mail servers."

In other words, under their proposal, can still send emails so long as we are authenticating to an SMTP server.

We can use our College email, our Google, Yahoo, etc. accounts.

This is how I interpret their idea:
- You want to send email? Connect to an SMTP server and log on.
- Incoming traffic is not interfered with.
- If you send SMTP traffic directly from your computer to someone else's computer, this is blocked.

I'm not sure exactly how one would implement this because one cannot know every "legitimate" mail server. Further, ISP's will not (should not) be scanning all of our SMTP packets to see what kind of traffic is coming from our computers. The easiest solution is something already in place, although it annoys me. I can still send SMTP from my computer (RoadRunner ISP, New York City) but if I send to an AOL user, for example, I get a reply back from AOL explaining that AOL will not accept emails from a Residential IP address. This is irritating, but it's no bother. Simply have all the ISP's say, these IP blocks are for our residential customers --- if you get email from them, it's probably a spam zombie, so you may wish to block such SMTP traffic if it becomes a bother.

I'm not proposing anything, just trying to piece together what the FTC is actually saying. Trust me, they're not so clueless; it's usually the papers, especially in these generic wire reports, that mess up the details.

The FTC is most certainly _not_ recommending that all port 25 traffic is blocked; they are not limiting anyone to their ISP's mail servers.How would the FTC people log in to their own FTC email from their homes? They'd have the same issues we'd have.

Anyway, since I *never* use my ISP mail server (mostly because Google is faster, has more storage, and is easier to access when I don't feel like carrying my laptop around; and because for professional stuff I tell people to contact me @honorscollege.cuny.edu (even though I SMTP back through Google).

Though less technical, I'm sure, most professional people require such a setup. Think things through. I see so many posts regarding outright and absolute SMTP / Port 25 blocking. That's too ridiculous to believe. Indeed, it's not even close to what the FTC actually says, as I cite above.

Read their site if you still have your doubts. Let it be said, however, that the government is not as stupid as some would like to believe.

The article is quite vague. But I really think that Reuters is misunderstanding the details here and creating this inclarity. The FTC is not so stupid as to block port 25.

I immediately went to ftc.gov.
Here is a link to their actual press release:
http://ftc.gov/opa/2005/05/zombies.htm

They have a more detailed website at:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/spam/zombie/ index.htm

This site appears to be geared for the people who actually understand what's going on. The very first bullet point on the site states very clearly:
"block port 25 except for the outbound SMTP requirements of authenticated users of mail servers designed for client traffic. Explore implementing Authenticated SMTP on port 587 for clients who must operate outgoing mail servers."

In other words, under their proposal, can still send emails so long as we are authenticating to an SMTP server.

We can use our College email, our Google, Yahoo, etc. accounts.

This is how I interpret their idea:
- You want to send email? Connect to an SMTP server and log on.
- Incoming traffic is not interfered with.
- If you send SMTP traffic directly from your computer to someone else's computer, this is blocked.

I'm not sure exactly how one would implement this because one cannot know every "legitimate" mail server. Further, ISP's will not (should not) be scanning all of our SMTP packets to see what kind of traffic is coming from our computers. The easiest solution is something already in place, although it annoys me. I can still send SMTP from my computer (RoadRunner ISP, New York City) but if I send to an AOL user, for example, I get a reply back from AOL explaining that AOL will not accept emails from a Residential IP address. This is irritating, but it's no bother. Simply have all the ISP's say, these IP blocks are for our residential customers --- if you get email from them, it's probably a spam zombie, so you may wish to block such SMTP traffic if it becomes a bother.

I'm not proposing anything, just trying to piece together what the FTC is actually saying. Trust me, they're not so clueless; it's usually the papers, especially in these generic wire reports, that mess up the details.

The FTC is most certainly _not_ recommending that all port 25 traffic is blocked; they are not limiting anyone to their ISP's mail servers.How would the FTC people log in to their own FTC email from their homes? They'd have the same issues we'd have.

Anyway, since I *never* use my ISP mail server (mostly because Google is faster, has more storage, and is easier to access when I don't feel like carrying my laptop around; and because for professional stuff I tell people to contact me @honorscollege.cuny.edu (even though I SMTP back through Google).

Though less technical, I'm sure, most professional people require such a setup. Think things through. I see so many posts regarding outright and absolute SMTP / Port 25 blocking. That's too ridiculous to believe. Indeed, it's not even close to what the FTC actually says, as I cite above.

Read their site if you still have your doubts. Let it be said, however, that the government is not as stupid as some would like to believe.

You can get more details at the Federal Trade Commission website: http://www.ftc.gov/