unspam.com · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

UnSpam ,Honeypots + $1 BILLION plus by ITMagic · 2007-05-07 06:06 · Score: 1 · on Utah Anti-Kids-Spam Registry "a Flop"

WTF is going on? I'd be very interested to know just exactly what is happening here.

On the one hand we have a Gov't scheme funding a private company - not only to enforce the law, but also one passed specifically to give UnSpam the right to collect ongoing revenues. In my eyes, this is a government sponsored monopoly - ergo a BAD thing.

Then again, the scheme has failed to give the Gov't the profits they had hoped for. As you shouldn't pass laws simply to generate revenue (unless you are at least honest and call it "Taxation"), I feel halfway between "Tough shit, guys", and "You should get your asses kicked out of office".

HOWEVER, what _REALLY_ is peaking my interest is UnSpam Technologies, Inc. This, dear Readers, is the same outfit you read about 2 weeks ago on this illustrious rag, about the impending court action.

So, the questions I pose are:

Do we THANK Utah for funding our fight, even though it cost them tax-payers money?
If UnSpam actially _WIN_ $1B+ from Honeypot, who gets the money? UnSpam, Utah, or Ourselves?
or, do we condemn both UnSpam and the Utah politicians?

Re:Question by pashdown · 2007-04-11 08:21 · Score: 1 · on Utah Bans Keyword Advertising

Unspam, the same people responsible for the ill-conceived Child Email Registry. Seems these people can't come up with a profit model without help from their legislator.

Re:The one bit I don't get by michaelwexler · 2006-08-11 04:30 · Score: 2, Insightful · on Michigan Enforces Do-Not-Email Registry Law

While the porn industry certainly uses spam, there are (hard to believe) some companies which run fully confirmed opt-in mailings that outsource because (hard to believe) email done right is not in most company's capabilities.

These 3rd parties are concerned about the abusive use of the do-not-email list, including the following:
1) The only company providing those services (http://www.unspam.com/) is the one lobbying for the laws. We don't seem to appeciate things like Cheney pushing Halliburton; should we accept the same for the do-not-email? Their solution is the very one the FTC suggested was a disaster in the report linked below; should we assume that the states did a deeper investigation of the implementation issues than the multi-year FTC one?
2) The list doesn't solve the very problem it is supposed to handle. That is, it provides an easy way to detect who are kids on the list, and then hammer-mail them with kid-oriented spam. Sure, less porn, but more spam. That seems like a problem to me.
3) Others have mentioned the forgery issues: If you get joejobbed, the current law in MI (and proposed in Utah) doesn't care. You are liable. Too bad.
4) Its a state level law, meaning that its close to impossible to use against international mailers.
5) Legit companies _agree with you_ that spam is bad. However, like many slashdotters, they think dumb laws (like DMCA) i.e. poor implementations, are bad and should be removed. The Mich and Utah laws and approaches are bad ways to solve important problems.

Previous posters are correct about spamgangs and other issues there... but not all direct marketers are spammers. If you are stupid enough to believe that all marketing is bad, etc. etc., feel free to put your name on the current do-not-email http://www.ftc.gov/reports/dneregistry/report.pdf is the link to the FTC's report, which includes many of these ideas expanded.

Re:Sue the software companies by www.sorehands.com · 2003-12-03 03:49 · Score: 1 · on Another Worm Targets Anti-Spam Sites

Actually, there was a 419 spam victim that killed. The ironic part is that is was a Nigerian diplomat.