Slashdot Mirror

Anything which makes unwanted bells go off in my house by remote control is an invasion of my peace and quiet. Get some laws passed that allow the victim to hit #5 on their phone to charge the caller $5.00, then I'll be happy. If someone WANTS these calls, that's fine. Don't push #5. Most people don't want these calls and the victims should be able to instantly make these groups feel the pressure back in a big way.

Groups like The American Teleservices Association (rebranded to remove "Telemarketing" from their name) and The Direct Marketing Association talk U.S. Congressmen into passing laws which enable annoying, invasive and often fraudulent activities from this lowlife "industry". It's an industry to the extent that people get paid to ring bells in my house but jeez - earn a living some other way. Annoying everyone over the phone [I believe] is not an "industry" as the lobbyist associations claim. If there was money in ringing your doorbell and hitting people with buckets of paint ten times a day, I'm sure there would be a lobbyist group for that, too. Oh wait... that's PETA.

This site here might be of help.

It's possible to filter out the bottom-feeders, as we do at SiteTruth. We're looking at this mostly from the user side. But there are also serious complaints about "domaining" from the advertiser side.

Clicks on "typosquatting" sites don't lead to many sales. Basically, they're targeting users who click on random stuff. That doesn't mean those users actually buy based on their mis-aimed clicks. More likely, some real company that advertised via Google AdWords is getting money sucked out of their ad budget without much return. The analytics people are skeptical of the claims of domainers.

The Direct Marketing Association has a white paper for advertisers which recommends that advertisers filter those sites out of their campaigns. "The traffic produced by sites utilizing the practices described above is almost always absolutely worthless. To ensure contextual advertising effectiveness, advertisers should eliminate these sites from their campaigns." Google, however, makes this difficult, because Google doesn't tell the advertiser where their ads are running, and requires excluding each individual domainer site by name, from Google's user interface. There's no "disable all bottom feeders" option. This is a problem.

The DMA's white paper suggests ways an advertiser can defend their ad costs against domainers, automatically accumulating a list of domainers feeding them clicks, discovering which sites generate poor returns, and excluding them. But with clicks coming in randomly from hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of constantly changing bottom-feeder sites, blacklisting the bogus sites is like spam filtering by source address - it's a losing battle.

The advertiser community is getting wise to this. We may see some pushback from that side.

There is, but they generally take the liberty of doing it for you: http://www.the-dma.org/index.php

Here's a direct link to the biggest offenders: http://www.the-dma.org/premiermember/

There is, but they generally take the liberty of doing it for you: http://www.the-dma.org/index.php

Here's a direct link to the biggest offenders: http://www.the-dma.org/premiermember/

A month after signing up, ALL for-profit telemarketing calls have stopped. The only ones that remain are the not-for-profit-beg-for-money-so-80%-can-go-to-the- telemarketing-company variety. While annoying, it's a lot less than it used to be.

If they're calling your cell phone, that's against the law.

If you are in the U.S. and the line is registered residential, then this has been illegal since 1991.

Some relevant links:

• DMA Info
• The FCC
• Wikipedia
• Junkbusters

Microsoft as an ISP is taking the money.

U-CAN-SPAM permits AGs and ISPs to sue spammers for money. One of the things which sucks is most ISPs (in the way we think of ISPs) aren't going after them and AGs as well as the FTC serve in bulk mode: get billionz-n-billionz of examples, then ponder going after them.

It's the fault of the DMA, who essentially wrote U-CAN-SPAM. Take a gander at some of these from Jerry Cerasale, of the DMA, on June 16, 2004:

Washington Post...We agree that the consumer should have choice, that they can say 'no' to receiving further e-mail. (IOW, they demand the right for everyone to get one bite at the apple).

ZDNet.com, October 21, 2002..."We're finding that we need to give the consumers the choice to try and allow them to control their inbox, to try and say no, I don't want this, while leaving the medium open for commerce," Cerasale said.

But, Cerasale said, a federal requirement that consumers "opt in" instead of "opt out" of bulk e-mail is unacceptable. "We think the opt-in creates a true noneconomic model," Cerasale said. "We don't believe you get a viable economic model in opt-in."

Interpretation: any law which prevents businesses from making money via email is wrong. And anything which permits inbox owners to avoid getting business-oriented unless they give permission is wrong.

IOW, email serves one purpose and one purpose only: for businesses to make money. Anything impeding that is wrong and anything else is personal consumption and secondary.

But in a contradiction, here's what the DMA has to say about spyware legislation on May 25, 2005:

"The DMA strongly believes that consumers should be in control of their computers..."

Now, DMA, which is it? Do we have control or don't we?

This last quote is the newest. Does it mean they've changed their collective minds? I doubt it I don't think they realized they contradicted themselves. If confronted, they'd backpedal and perform some serious tap dancing in the process.

If you want to collect the loot yourself, set up a server, sell services to your neighbors, and you're in business as an ISP. When the spam rolls in, pay a visit to your local court and file the paperwork.

BTW, I'll say here what I said on SPAM-L: even though Richter was taken off of the ROKSO list, Richter has tasted the taste of money regardless of how it was obtained and he's sitting on millions of email addresses. He's not shutting down how he does business, despite anything he says. And he still stands to make a lot of money harvesting email addresses and selling them to others. There is nothing in U-CAN-SPAM which prohibits the harvesting and sale of email addresses, only the use of harvesting email addresses as the targets of unsolicited email.

Some more hints. Create a strong privacy policy that says you won't sell your customer list for any reason.

You are running a mailing list, so having people forget to unselect that option while signing up for your web site is sort of expected. I wouldn't class that as spam.

Also for images in emails. None of those 1x1 pixel images that are just for tracking, but if you are selling a product and want to show a large image, that's acceptable to link back to the web. Again, annoying, but acceptable. A better solution is just to encourage people to click through, but that will be a smaller percentage.

A lot of how you craft emails depends on your customers and products, so I can't speak to that. However with a strong policy about what you will and won't do, you have a good start.

Look at what mailing lists you are subscribed to do. They are a bit of a pain to get on, easy to get off, they announce the volume of messages, they don't use any spam filter tricks. They are simply messages that you are putting out there for the recipient to use or abuse, no attempts to trick people into seeing them.

Here are some things I found in a quick google. I suggest using them as the absolute minimum.
http://www.the-dma.org/guidelines/ethicalguideline s.shtml/Some guidelines from the direct marketing association

http://www.the-dma.org/

This still places the burden of dealing with spam on the recipient. That is, always has been, and always will be unacceptable. The stuff should never have existed to begin with.

I have better things to do with my time than click through a pile of crap in my E-mail. Outlaw spamming, period, no matter how much the asshats at the DMA may scream about it (they screamed about the Do-Not-Call list as well, if I recall). It would be easy enough to do simply by extending the reach of the existing Junk FAX law.

In fact, had it not been for the DMA's spam apologists, that idea might have worked out from the get-go.

Nope. Courts have sided against the "Free Speach Means I Get To Do Whatever I Want" argument in the past, with no sign of it changing. The fact that you are unfamiliar with the issues doesn't change this fact.

Faxes have had laws against fax spam for awhile. Those have been challeneged in court, and the laws stand. Telemarketing used to be a minor annoyance, and it grew and grew until we ended up with the Do Not Call list. Tele-spammers have tried to argue "Free Speech" in regards to that law, and again they have lost. You would never argue that I had a right to advertise by painting my ad on your car or house without permission, so why would you believe that spammers forcing their unwanted crap onto millions of other peoples computers to be acceptable?

A couple of quotes from judges :

U.S. Federal Judge Stanley Sporkin:
"[Spammers] have come to court not because their freedom of speech is threatened but because their profits are; to dress up their complaints in First Amendment garb demeans the principles for which the First Amendment stands."

Chief Justice Berger, U.S. Supreme Court:
"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. We categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even good ideas on an unwilling recipient. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every persons domain."

So much for the free speech nonsense.

I sincerely doubt that the companies that employ spammmers, especially porn spammers, make enough money to make it worth their while to buy a congressman.

Porn is one of the most profitable online businesses. (Offline, too. Sex sells.) Porn showed other companies *how* to use the web to make money. Even so, the porn spammers were obviously not the ones that managed to get the CAN-SPAM law passed, or there would not be additional restrictions for porn spam. And they aren't all small timers. For instance, Columbia House (you know - the "Get 10 albums for 10 cents!" people) has recently created a porn division.

The DMA (Direct Marketing Association) wrote CAN-SPAM. It has very, very large businesses as members. Visit the link. You'll notice that the top section of the page is nothing but search engine keyword spam.

From their page, some of their members :
The DMA membership roster includes companies like AT&T, IBM, AOL Time Warner, Mellon Bank, Microsoft, Home Shopping Network, The New York Times, Rapp Collins, Prudential Insurance, Phillip Morris, Proctor & Gamble, as well as R.R. Donnelley, Acxiom, Experian and DoubleClick.

Now, do you want to stick with your "they can't afford to lobby congress" story? The DMA didn't want spam to be banned, so they managed to get a law past that let congresscritters say "Look, we passed a law against spam!" while actually passing a law that just formalised how to spam legally.

You might want to loosen your tinfoil hat some.

You might want to educate yourself about the issues instead of talking trash just because you don't understand.

I also return very nearly every piece of junk mail with a note to remove me from their mailing list. This is a lot of work, and it takes consistency and stamps (for example, telling companies that I actually *do* business with to stop sending me their fricking catalog). Eventually, it works pretty well. I never get telemarketing calls (just stupid surveys sometimes, or charities), and get very little junk mail.

Whenever anyone calls - even for market research, political or charitable purposes - tell them to add you to their "do not call" list. (This is important - just saying "go away" is meaningless.) Basically, if you work hard you can take some control over your mailbox and your telephone.

Finally, as others have said, be cautious about disclosing your information. Do you need to write a check? If not, try a credit or debit card - nobody ever wants your telephone # etc. for those. Avoid any sort of free offer (online or on paper) where you provide your personal information...likely you'll pay for it in sales calls or other harassments. Just be smart, but start (in the US) with the basics: the FCC's list, the DMA's list, and your credit report. PS: nothing that I've found works at all for spam. About all you can do is try to get spamblockers working, or use disposable email addresses, or pursue other strategies. Blah!

But spammers? They're not particularly organized, as far as I know.

I would guess it's mainly the direct marketing association that lobbies for weaker spam regulation. They are opposing a national do-not-spam list, and they're the main reason why the do-not-call list has no power.

Now, they're not that big, but there's not really anyone lobbying against them. At least, not in the ways it counts, through money and people actually in congress talking with congressmen day in day out.

A likely change would be to embrace the Direct Marketing Association's "Four Pillars of Responsible E-Mail Marketing".. That's opt-out, not opt-in. And it's "narrow opt-out"; you may have to opt out for each "line of business" of each spammer separately. Once for Viagra, once for refinancing, once for toner cartridges...

My point is that you don't want to blindly let through everything Ironport sends. You might give them some credit in the spam filters, but don't just open a hole.

What's scary about Bonded Sender is that IronPort is putting a big hole in the anti-spam infrastructure. They have total control over this hole. They have no contractual relationship or legal obligation to mail recipients that says they can't use it any way they want to. They just say "trust us". They can change the rules and open the spam floodgates once they have enough people relying on Bonded Sender.

We've heard that before.

They have a TrustE logo, but that's meaningless. All that means is that you agree to conform to your own privacy policy. Which you can change at any time.

They might, for example, change the rules to "conform to the four pillars of responsible E-mail" promoted by the Direct Marketing Association. Those don't require double opt-in or a previous business relationship, so bulkers can trade mailing lists around. All they have to do is honor narrow opt-outs. (Opt out once for Viagra, once for mortgage refinancing, once for inkjet refills...)

• a domain owner lists its domain in the registry (e.g. aol.com)
  
• the domain owner must also publish a companion domain name to which it is legal to send spam (e.g., aol-allmail.com)
  
• by default, all mail to the companion domain is forwarded to the main domain, (e.g. user@aol-allmail.com is forwarded to user@aol.com), but by explicit request the user can turn off the mail forwarding
  
• someone who wants to send UCE to a domain on the list will send it to the alternative domain instead, and if the user has turned off forwarding (or if the user does not exist) the sender will get an error response.
  

First, the Senate bill is "opt-out", not "opt-in". After January 1, spam in California is simply a crime. You don't have to opt out.

Second, the Senate bill has no private right of action. It can only be enforced by Government action, and only in Federal court. California lets any victim sue. You can sue in small claims court (which goes to $10,000 in California), and you can sue in a class action, so the usual ambulance-chasers can go for the business.

Third, the California law lets you sue anyone who "sends, or causes to send" spam. "The true beneficiaries of spam are the advertisers who benefit from the marketing derived from the advertisements.", says the law. This lets you go after the advertiser, rather than the spammer. Just find out where the money goes when you put in a credit card number, and sue them. The Senate bill doesn't let you do that.

Fourth, the Senate bill preempts stronger state anti-spam laws. No more private anti-spam suits, no "ADV:" requirement, etc.

Finally, the Direct Marketing Association supports the weak Senate bill. As they put it, "Legitimate e-mail marketing is a promising vehicle for global commerce." That's a good reason to oppose it.

I live in Pennsylvania, and like a number of other states we've had a state-wide DNC list for over a year now. I put my number of the list shortly after it was announced, and unsolicited calls to my apartment since the list went in effect have almost all stopped - one or two a month at most, and even those are from bonafide non profits (Pittsburgh Symphony, etc). Pre-list, I would say we got 2 or 3 calls each morning. Although on the upside I didn't need to remember to set my alarm before...

It looks like our Attorney General has even tried his hand at enforcing the law by suing Liberty One Financial, Inc. The press release states that they are seeking damages of $1000 per violation, $3000 if the violation involves a complainant over 60 years of age, and a ban on the company's right to do business in PA.

you beat me to it. There is a similar list for every country the Direct Marketing Association operates in (I think, hard to tell where I don't speak the language, but UK, Australia, Canada and US all have lists).

You can find your country specific weblinks at http://www.the-dma.org/affiliates/dmintl.shtml.

Something i've found useful (and this requires interaction with USPS) in reducing the number of calls I get at home was to register directly with the DMA to no longer be called/mailed/whatnot from their members. I don't need to fill up my trash can, fireplace, or recycling bin with the junk they mail me. Here's the link so you can do the same for yourself. Yes, it requires a stamp, printer and envelope but I place the cost of printing and mailing close to $1 for most people. As I work from home, this has been necessary and helps get my name off the lists. Also, be sure to pay close attention each time a company you do business with mails you a copy of their privacy policy. American Express provided a nice form in one of the bill envelopes to fill out and mail-in saying I did not want to be bothered by their partners. Be sure to pay attention to what is in those envelopes even if you pay your bill online (as I do) to not miss those important chances to reduce the junk that fills up your phone line, email box, or postal box from companies.

Why not call the DMA? At their site they list their phone numbers as New York: 212.768.7277 and Washington, D.C.: 202.955.5030. There are fax numbers there as well, but junk faxes are probably illegal.

How cool would it be if there was evidence that the Direct Marketing Association was behind the SoBig worm? We could sick the RIAA on them, and maybe tell SCO that the DMA was using Linux to develop it. With any luck, they could all come together and ignite like a small star, ridding the world of the lot of them!

Only in my dreams...

But quite honestly, as long as you are reasonable (ie, no cussing, no threats, etc) I don't see how they can complain that people call after the court ruled that people don't have the right to say No to phone calls.

If the members of the DMA have a right to call until they are each individually told "Go away" then certainly we have that same right.

But again, I'm not going to call the court.

I do, however, recommend calling the DMA and some of their friends. The judge wouldn't even have been looking at this except for the ATA and DMA and buddies filing the lawsuit. They are the ones that call us time after time. Call them!

The American Teleservices Association can be called at (866) 500-4272.

You can call the Direct Marketing Association at (202) 861-2410.

Other numbers for the DMA:
212 768-7277
212.790.1488
They have a fax listed at 212.391.1532.

The 768-7277 number has many extensions, and you can find out which one goes where on the DMA website.

• "Sending three variations of the same offer to the same recipient is a good way to improve response rates."

They have what claims to be an "opt out" link on their site, but if you're not careful, it signs you up for their newsletter, "The Noisemaker".

Nothing on their site indicates that they tag their spams with "ADV:", as current California law requires. (After January 1, they either shut down or they're criminals.)

Rock and roll!

Now, can we get a home telephone number (or cell) for this nitwit?

Direct marketing exec: FTC overreached with no-call list

Robert Wientzen, president and CEO of Direct Marketing Association

Here's what he thinks of spam:

http://www.the-dma.org/memberguide/tacklingspam.sh tml

I think we need to let him know what we think. Full contact list:

http://www.the-dma.org/aboutdma/contactthedma.shtm l

President's office:

212.768.7277, ext. 1604

Remember, not harrassment, simply call and let them know that you don't appreciate their efforts. Please read the CNN interview above to see what kind of twits we're dealing with here.

Michael

Rock and roll!

Now, can we get a home telephone number (or cell) for this nitwit?

Direct marketing exec: FTC overreached with no-call list

Robert Wientzen, president and CEO of Direct Marketing Association

Here's what he thinks of spam:

http://www.the-dma.org/memberguide/tacklingspam.sh tml

I think we need to let him know what we think. Full contact list:

http://www.the-dma.org/aboutdma/contactthedma.shtm l

President's office:

212.768.7277, ext. 1604

Remember, not harrassment, simply call and let them know that you don't appreciate their efforts. Please read the CNN interview above to see what kind of twits we're dealing with here.

Michael

The constitutional issue is the seperation of legislative and executive power. The congress granted the FTC the authority to make rules concerning telemarketing fraud. The court felt that this rule was outside the authority granted by congress. An executive branch agency does not have the ability to make law, but the do have the ability to make the rules used to implement a law. The court held that the FTC overreached, it tried to make law instead of rules.

Congress now needs to make a law authorizing the FTC to implement a Do-Not-Call registry.

Here is the decision the judge rendered. It seems an incredible reach to find that Congress did not authorize the FTC to create the Do-Not-Call list.

Well, lets look at their web site, specifically the DMA Guidlines on business ethics:

• Committee On Ethical Business Practice - oops! 404
• Ethical Business Practice Guidelines - oops! 404
• Mailing List Practices - oops! 404
• Online Marketing Privacy Principles - oops! 404
• DMA Health Data Marketing Guidelines - oops! 404
• FAQ on DMA Health Data Marketing Guidelines - oops! 404
• Screening Advertisements: A Guide for the Media - oops! 404

Wow, as much as they are concerned with the privacy of the general public and practicing ethical business, those links *must* have become 404 just as I went to go look at them - cause surely they would have noticed earlier..

That sentence had to do with a different issue addressed in the DMA's complaint, which had to do with telemarketers charging pre-acquired account numbers, instead of getting them directly from the callee. The judge ruled for the FTC on that issue.

Congress has the Constitutional ability to create laws regulating commerce. It can (and already did) ban "abusive" telemarketing. This is not controversial. It is the opinion of Congress and at least 50 million Americans that it is abusive to be cold-called for commercial reasons after you have expressly indicating your desire not to be called (by putting your number on the DNC list). The judge quibbles with this logic. He says that because Congress didn't create a law explicitly instructing FTC to make a list, the FTC overstepped its mandate. The judgement does not depend on any 1st Amendment issues.

The right to free speech does not give people carte blanche to do anything they want. I cannot, for instance, stand outside your house at 3am with a bullhorn, loudly attempting to have a conversation with you and your neighbors. It is clear that such behavior is neither constitutionally protected, nor in the public interest. Telemarketing is no different. Telemarketing is widely viewed as disruptive, intrusive, abusive, anti-social behavior. There is no Constitutional reason why it should not be regulated.

Call the DMA. E-mail them. Here's their contact info. If they keep getting enough pissed off people clogging their phones and inboxes, they might back off.

And if they don't, I feel perfectly justified telling every telemarketer who calls me to go f#$& themselves, and to make sure they pass that along to every entity who opposed the DNC. Right now I'm polite but firm with them. If I can't opt out, then screw 'em.

i gave them a call... they said that they have their own do-not-call list, so they don't need the ftc having one... ironic eh?

Direct Marketing Association.
www.the-dma.org

Headquarters

1120 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036-6700

Telephone: 212.768.7277

Fax: 212.302.6714

Washington D. C. Office

1111 19th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036-3603

Telephone: 202.955.5030

Fax: 202.955.0085

and a whole list of crappy people:
http://www.the-dma.org/aboutdma/contactthedma.shtm l

President's Office
Presiden@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1604

Press Contact
Privacy
privacy@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 2408

i gave them a call... they said that they have their own do-not-call list, so they don't need the ftc having one... ironic eh?

Direct Marketing Association.
www.the-dma.org

Headquarters

1120 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036-6700

Telephone: 212.768.7277

Fax: 212.302.6714

Washington D. C. Office

1111 19th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036-3603

Telephone: 202.955.5030

Fax: 202.955.0085

and a whole list of crappy people:
http://www.the-dma.org/aboutdma/contactthedma.shtm l

President's Office
Presiden@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 1604

Press Contact
Privacy
privacy@the-dma.org 212.768.7277, ext. 2408

• "The DMA is a membership organization." Interesting fact.
• "We are here to help you." Good, because I need help right now- my blood pressure is up after reading this article.
• "You can reach us by mail, phone, fax or e-mail at the following addresses:"

• "The DMA is a membership organization." Interesting fact.
• "We are here to help you." Good, because I need help right now- my blood pressure is up after reading this article.
• "You can reach us by mail, phone, fax or e-mail at the following addresses:"

Direct link to their contact page:

http://www.the-dma.org/aboutdma/contactthedma.shtm l

I wonder how they'd like to get 50 million emails & phone calls telling them to go fsck themselves...

I haven't had time to read it yet, but here it is: Order

http://www.the-dma.org/whitepapers/judgement.pdf

http://www.the-dma.org/, they seem to be quite proud of themselves

Your right. I posted this story here a while ago. I was unable to get at&t to help me unfortunatly, so i dropped them as a cell phone carrier. Before i dropped them however i was getting these calls quite regularly. What i did was write nasty emails to the company repeatadly quoting the tcpa. Good luck!

between the devil we know and the devil we don't.

Okay, fine, popups are legal. That particular devil we know very well, and I gots my armor of righteousness loaded up at boot. But if popups (even competitive ones) become illegal, then who knows what the poodlefuckers will come up with next.

I don't share the hostility that most posters here feel towards the actual telemarketing employees.

I know people who have at various times held telemarketing jobs, and they all described thier jobs in similar terms to what is in some of the more hostile posts here. They took those jobs because it was what was available where they were. They took those jobs to get the last bit of cash needed to move on to the "greener pastures" we all dream about. The telemarketing employee is just a fleshy version of the email client being used to send spam. Thier employers, the clients who hire these firms, the DMA, the people who buy the crap that these poor sods are forced to sling over the phone for a couple of bucks are to blame for the plague of interrupted dinners. Not the employees who take these jobs.

Two Million jobs is a sh*tload of unemployment. The economy is not gonna "perk up" like that republican bastard promised us with two million people added to the unemployment ranks.

In other words I'm split on this one.

I'm on the do not call list.

I think the DMA and ATA need to shut up and go home instead of suing for the right to sell crap that very few people want over the phone. Maybe they will realize that a "no cold calls" policy is good for thier business AND their employees.

But I don't think that two million jobs lost in one fell swoop is good for anybody, and I don't for a second think that I'd be above taking a crappy telemarketing job if I had no other option to keep the rent paid and some food in the fridge.

You're making the (incorrect) assumption that all states have a DNC list. As of this moment, there are only 36 states that either have or are going to have a DNC list. Of those, 6 have not yet gone into effect. (Data from here).

The various states have different rules regarding who can and cannot contact people on the DNC lists. In general this doesn't affect most telemarketers -- they're verbotten no matter what. Who it does affect are the somewhat more socially acceptable telemarketers, and the ones that are least likely to be trying to screw you for a profit -- pollsters, charities, etc. It makes their job more difficult and thus more expensive, which is rather silly since they're generally less objectionable than telemarketers trying to sell you crap.

On top of that there's jurisdictional issues when the telemarketer is from out of state. The odds of anyone collecting on a telemarketer in Alaska making illegal solicitations to someone in Alabama are considerably reduced when you have to deal with two different state laws than when you have to deal with a single Federal law.

So are the MPAA and the DMA. They should all be taken down by the Patriot Act, RICO, and every other law aimed at putting away such criminal enterprises.

I wonder how many of these spammers are using open relays.

Whenever I read of proposed spam legislation and law enforcement attempts, I can't help but think that this somehow encourages companies and individuals to not take the neccessary care in configuring thier hosts, suscribing to blackhole lists, or running proper filters on thier hosts/servers.

When I see the disparity between email providers in the amount of spam I recieve, I realise that the admins are at least partially to blame. (My mail account at mail.com recieves approximately 7 to 12 spam emails a day, while my account at gmx has recieved only about 5 during the past year.)

Are there still any reliable blackhole lists?

Can/should email providers filter outgoing mail to regulate thier customers?

Can administrators control the spam problem?

I really don't like the idea of leaving this up to legislation, as it's likely that the DMA can buy themselves a few loopholes.

Most of the big junk mailers are members, as this is their advocacy group. Though I don't see an unrestricted member list, this page tells us:

The DMA membership roster includes companies like AT&T, IBM, AOL Time Warner, Mellon Bank, Microsoft, Home Shopping Network, The New York Times, Rapp Collins, Prudential Insurance, Phillip Morris, Proctor & Gamble, as well as R.R. Donnelley, Acxiom, Experian and DoubleClick.

I would be very surprised if the volume of junk mail from large national direct mailers did not decrease noticably a few months after you added your address to the list. You probably will not see a noticable decrease in mail from local merchants and organizations, as these guys are a lot less likely to be able to justify the $1075 annual membership dues.

Most of the big junk mailers are members, as this is their advocacy group. Though I don't see an unrestricted member list, this page tells us:

The DMA membership roster includes companies like AT&T, IBM, AOL Time Warner, Mellon Bank, Microsoft, Home Shopping Network, The New York Times, Rapp Collins, Prudential Insurance, Phillip Morris, Proctor & Gamble, as well as R.R. Donnelley, Acxiom, Experian and DoubleClick.

I would be very surprised if the volume of junk mail from large national direct mailers did not decrease noticably a few months after you added your address to the list. You probably will not see a noticable decrease in mail from local merchants and organizations, as these guys are a lot less likely to be able to justify the $1075 annual membership dues.

The bill in question is S.877 The contents of the bill haven't been posted to Thomas yet, but should be in a day or two.

I can't really say what I think about the bill, just yet, because the articles I've read are giving conflicting stories. One article says that ISPs will be able to sue spammers, while another indicates that only the state attorneys general will be able to.

The Implementation Calendar is reasonably agressive, which is suprising. By October we should be getting getting significantly fewer calls. Frankly, I'm suprised that the legislation was signed at all, but having been signed, It's admirable that any republican administration would allow such an agressive track to implementation. I guess the Direct Marketing Association didn't contribute enough to the Bush campeign, or, perhaps direct marketers have pissed off enough people on both sides of the isle, that no level of lobbying would have altered the outcome.

--CTH