Slashdot Mirror

Ahh, but if they spame nicely then they will have valid return-email addys, won't they? Or optimally, an X-UCE header, or some such.

Or, as the California and Colorado state laws require, the Subject header begins with "ADV:", although this is incompatible with some other spam laws.

I still think per-address-pair hash cash is a better solution; see the LAPO hash-cash demo applet for a simple hash cash generator implementation.

Ahh, but if they spame nicely then they will have valid return-email addys, won't they? Or optimally, an X-UCE header, or some such.

Or, as the California and Colorado state laws require, the Subject header begins with "ADV:", although this is incompatible with some other spam laws.

I still think per-address-pair hash cash is a better solution; see the LAPO hash-cash demo applet for a simple hash cash generator implementation.

Yes, the usual defenition of 'spam' is when it is sent to multiple people. However, the legal defenition of 'UCE' or Unsolicited Commercial Email (as defined by the state of Washington, possibly others) is that the recipient did not ask for it (as Neil didn't), that it is commercial in nature (soliciting business is definitely commercial), and, of course, that it be email. It doesn't have to be bulk.

Also, are you sure that UCEs are illegal? Looking at Washington's anti-spam law here, it looks like UCEs are not illegal. Only misleading commercial e-mails (with forged headers, etc.) are illegal. Perhaps there are other anti-spam laws in Washington that I don't know about.

I'm from MO and didn't know this law covered email as well as telemarketers. Cool! Here's a copy of Missouri's anti-spam law: http://www.spamlaws.com/state/mo.html

The electronic mail message referenced in this report was transmitted to a user or users of an electronic mail service based in the state of Tennessee, USA, in direct violation of Tennessee Code Title 47, Chapter 18, Part 25: "Unsolicited Advertising by Electronic Means." See http://www.spamlaws.com/state/tn.html for the complete text of this law.

You are going one step further by claiming that massive (and often distributed) attacks on open relays and ill-prepared ISPs constitutes "speech." I must admit that this is one of the more puzzling arguments I've heard in favor of spammers.

This is not what the law appears to forbid. It appears to forbid "unsolicited email documents". This is what I was ranting about. If the law forbade using open mail relays or anything that can be considered an "attack" I'd have no problem. But it seems to be forbidding the messages themselves. Maybe this is for logistical reasons (how do you prove it's an attack?) but banning people from "sending unsolicited email" seems wrong to me. I don't have a personal relationship with my Congressperson, if I send him an unsolicited email can that be considered spam? Sure, I'm being nitpicky here, but this is the law, and I think it's a bad one. From the law: "17538.4. (a) No person or entity conducting business in this state shall facsimile (fax) or cause to be faxed, or electronically mail (e-mail) or cause to be e-mailed, documents consisting of unsolicited advertising material for the lease, sale, rental, gift offer, or other disposition of any realty, goods, services, or extension of credit unless..." This doesn't mention attacks or open relays or anything of the sort. It says you can't send unsolicited messages. That is the problem.

(h) An employer who is the registered owner of more than one e-mail address may notify the [spammer] ... of the desire to cease e-mailing on behalf of all of the employees who may use employer-provided and employer-controlled e-mail addresses.

What are the odds of getting someone big to do this, like Hotmail or AOL? Then we'll really see how against spam the big companies are.

If you are in states with so-called "anti-spam" laws, you can start taking legal action against spammers. Check out:

• SpamLaws.com
• SueSpammers.org
• WA-State-Resident.com/
• Washington AG's spam page
• Spam Free Washington
• My small claims page :)

Sorry for the Washington-heavy links; it's my home state.

What, pratel, is the anti-spam legislation that has been passed in the US?

Spamlaws.com still susscintly leaves the state of current federal spam legislation at 3 words: Enacted legislation: None

Most spam does not use open relays
About half of what I get does

The fraudulent contact info / violation of AUP are both violations of contract law. You break a contract, you're breaking law, unless the term itself is breaking the law.

Wahington State went after spammers. The state was the first to pass anti-spamming legislation.

And many states have followed suit. Check spamlaws.com to see if your state (or country) is on the list.

A few other cases have gone through various courts in the US with similar results. No case has ever found in favor of the spammer and no spam-specific[1] case has ever been heard at the appellate level.

Actually, one case did make it up a state appeals ladder. Washington state passed the first US anti-spamming law. Under that law the state's attorney general filed suit against a spammer (Jason "Natural Instincts" Heckel) and won.

The spammer appealed the case and had it overturned at the appellate level (spammers rejoiced worldwide). But luckily the state's Supreme Court was not composed of idiots and threw out the appellate decision in June of this year.

This made the law golden in that state and only a VERY extensive and expensive appeals process though the federal court system could change it.

One can still spam under the law, but must follow certain rules. The state Supreme Court stated the law only really required the spammers to do one thing: Be Truthful

Now we know why spammers hate the law so much.

[1]Link to COAngler's "Rowan v. US Postal Service" note

The US has some anti-spam laws, and we dont enforce them, or dont allow the law to have any teeth.

Actually, we don't really have any laws regarding spam here in the US. spamlaws.com sums up the state of legislation in the US quite well in 3 words: "Enacted legislation: none". Most of the spam prosecution in the US falls under contract, fraud, or theft laws.

Spamlaws.com gives a nice 3 word statement of the status of enacted spam legislation: "Enacted legislation: None"

Spamlaws.com gives a nice 3 word statement of the status of enacted spam legislation: "Enacted legislation: None"

The so-called "Anti-spamming Act" (HR 1017) was introduced a full month *after* the much better "Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2001" (HR 95), in an apparent attempt to weaken antispam law.

Goodlatte's copycat "Anti-spamming Act" (HR1017) takes away service providers' rights to enforce their policies: The "Unsolicited Commercial Email" act (HR95) preserves that right..

The "Anti-spamming" act gives spammers free run of your server, until you explicitly tell them to stop. The "UCE" act lets admins proactively keep spam off their system. (Note: Goodlatte's Virginia constituency includes AOL, which has fought hard for the right to spam for several years, and which pushed to defeat last year's HR3113.)

(Both bills allow end recipients to sue, both require valid sender information, both penalize forgery. Both ostensibly mandate opt-out -- i.e., you have to tell the spammer to stop before they're forced to -- but HR 95 allows service providers to supersede that issue by setting their own policies to equal opt-in.)

Don't be fooled. Rep. Goodlatte's "Anti-spamming" bill is a mandate to spam: The "UCE" Act (HR95) is the real thing.

But don't take my word for it. See what others have to say:

• US legislation pages for The Suespammers Project
• US legislation pages at spamlaws.com
• Suespammers discussion list

The so-called "Anti-spamming Act" (HR 1017) was introduced a full month *after* the much better "Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2001" (HR 95), in an apparent attempt to weaken antispam law.

Goodlatte's copycat "Anti-spamming Act" (HR1017) takes away service providers' rights to enforce their policies: The "Unsolicited Commercial Email" act (HR95) preserves that right..

The "Anti-spamming" act gives spammers free run of your server, until you explicitly tell them to stop. The "UCE" act lets admins proactively keep spam off their system. (Note: Goodlatte's Virginia constituency includes AOL, which has fought hard for the right to spam for several years, and which pushed to defeat last year's HR3113.)

(Both bills allow end recipients to sue, both require valid sender information, both penalize forgery. Both ostensibly mandate opt-out -- i.e., you have to tell the spammer to stop before they're forced to -- but HR 95 allows service providers to supersede that issue by setting their own policies to equal opt-in.)

Don't be fooled. Rep. Goodlatte's "Anti-spamming" bill is a mandate to spam: The "UCE" Act (HR95) is the real thing.

But don't take my word for it. See what others have to say:

• US legislation pages for The Suespammers Project
• US legislation pages at spamlaws.com
• Suespammers discussion list

The so-called "Anti-spamming Act" (HR 1017) was introduced a full month *after* the much better "Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2001" (HR 95), in an apparent attempt to weaken antispam law.

Goodlatte's copycat "Anti-spamming Act" (HR1017) takes away service providers' rights to enforce their policies: The "Unsolicited Commercial Email" act (HR95) preserves that right..

The "Anti-spamming" act gives spammers free run of your server, until you explicitly tell them to stop. The "UCE" act lets admins proactively keep spam off their system. (Note: Goodlatte's Virginia constituency includes AOL, which has fought hard for the right to spam for several years, and which pushed to defeat last year's HR3113.)

(Both bills allow end recipients to sue, both require valid sender information, both penalize forgery. Both ostensibly mandate opt-out -- i.e., you have to tell the spammer to stop before they're forced to -- but HR 95 allows service providers to supersede that issue by setting their own policies to equal opt-in.)

Don't be fooled. Rep. Goodlatte's "Anti-spamming" bill is a mandate to spam: The "UCE" Act (HR95) is the real thing.

But don't take my word for it. See what others have to say:

• US legislation pages for The Suespammers Project
• US legislation pages at spamlaws.com
• Suespammers discussion list

The law allows for damages to the recipient of $500 or actual damages, which ever is greater, for EACH MESSAGE received. The law also allows $1,000 or actual damages, which ever is greater, to the Internet Service Provider, for EACH MESSAGE received.

Please! No spamming the birds. The Linux Pimp

Please! No spamming the birds. The Linux Pimp

Please! No spamming the birds. The Linux Pimp

The law allows for damages to the recipient of $500 or actual damages, which ever is greater, for EACH MESSAGE received. The law also allows $1,000 or actual damages, which ever is greater, to the Internet Service Provider, for EACH MESSAGE received.

We hate spam. The Linux Pimp

See if your state / Province / Country does at www.spamlaws.com. Specifically for us in the Old Dominion, the law can be found at http://www.spamlaws.com/state/va.html. The pertainent info is section 18.2-152.12 of the bill regarding Civil relief and damages, at the end.

I suggested before that we set up a legal fund to handle this kind of criminal violation and penalties such that all proceeds of the cases would go to a legal fund to help foster more cases. However, I think this may be difficult to organise as IANAL. :) Perhpas a Class Action as suggested above is the best approach, but again IANAL. :)

Be Seeing You,

Jeffrey.

See if your state / Province / Country does at www.spamlaws.com. Specifically for us in the Old Dominion, the law can be found at http://www.spamlaws.com/state/va.html. The pertainent info is section 18.2-152.12 of the bill regarding Civil relief and damages, at the end.

I suggested before that we set up a legal fund to handle this kind of criminal violation and penalties such that all proceeds of the cases would go to a legal fund to help foster more cases. However, I think this may be difficult to organise as IANAL. :) Perhpas a Class Action as suggested above is the best approach, but again IANAL. :)

Be Seeing You,

Jeffrey.