DMA to Control Spam by DMA Members

SiliconLawyer writes: "The Direct Marketing Association, the major U.S. tradegroup for companies using direct marketing techniques, will reportedly issue guidelines for how its members may and may not use e-mail as a marketing tool. Hopefully, this will influence other marketers toward more responsible use of e-mail. Details are on CNET here."

Comments

oh..kay

[Sawbones]

Maybe I'm in the distinct minority, but most of my SPAM doesn't come from any real reputable marketing firm. Email sent from a company that uses forged headers so I don't know who they are doesn't seem very likely to be an upstanding member of the Direct Marketing Association. It's like saying "Look, we've outlawed guns, now criminals won't shoot people"... but that's a whole other can of worms.

Yeah Right

[Meridun]

That's like relying on the Tobacco Companies to issue guidelines on when smoking is socially acceptable and not.

The DMA is all about self-interest, and their particular interest is enabling their members to put as much advertising in front of your nose as possible The only thing they're trying to accomplish here is to look responsive, so that the threat of useful legislation in the area will be less.

Oh, and as for those people foolish enough to sign up for their "voluntary" no-call lists for telemarketers, that's about equivalent to replying to spam; it only confirms that your phone number is legitimate.

Re:Yeah Right

[Tackhead]

> Their "do not call" lists might be scams, but the state government Do Not Call Registry does work.

And that's precisely why we're seeing the DMA tout its own do-not-call registry.

Because they're scared shitless that Congress will be deluged with complaints from citizens who've seen through the scam, and will actually do something about it.

This article about the DMA "please don't spam me" list is more of the same -- they're on the run, and they fear Congress will do to their email spamming dreams what it's threatening to do with their telemarketers by means of an FTC-mandated and government-enforced national Do Not Call registry.

Write your Congressman and tell him that you don't want the fox guarding the henhouse, and to support the FTC's anti-telemarketing proposals.

Not the Problem

[xonker]

Typically, members of the DMA aren't the problem. It's some fly-by-night outfit that is advertising Herbal Viagra or Hong Kong Vacation Discounts or whatever -- people who not only annoy the people who receive e-mail, but usually do so illegally by using open relays, obscuring their true IP/Email address and so on.

Most DMA members understand that opt-in is the best way to keep a happy customer, though some companies might occasionally make mistakes or require opt-out instead, they're not as bad as the ones who won't be affected by this in the slightest. It may not be 100%, but those companies really aren't the biggest problem. I doubt any of the companies who have harvested my email address on Yahoo! and send pr0n spam (with pictures) are members of the DMA.

I think a death penalty for spammers is a good place to start.

Effectiveness?

[Winged Cat]

1. How many of the problem spammers are members of the DMA? Resume spamming services, for instance, probably are not, and thus have no reason to even be aware of the DMA.
   
2. Even if a large number of the problem spammers do belong to the DMA, how many will actually abide by DMA regulations? What penalties will (not just can) the DMA mete out to its members who violate these regulations?
   

I'm sure the DMA wants to avoid regulations hitting their entire industry, but the facts are that they haven't been effective in the past. Junk faxes - including the infamous ones for more fax toner - are still regularly sent (I get a few every week at home). So, why should anyone reasonably expect anything they do to make a difference now?

Re:Self-Moderation

[ewomack]

I see your point, but I shouldn't have to filter it out to begin with. These are people who use my bandwidth that I pay for to sell their product.

Now, maybe if each piece of spam included a micropayment to my ISP...

Won't work!

[www.sorehands.com]

First, they don't allow the removal of a domain.

Second, who trusts the removal links?

Third, what prevents me from grabbing the removal database and using as a verified sucker database?

What would work is that DMA provides an email service that allows a member to submit a list and email to send to them, then they will test the address and if it is ok, then send it.

worthless

[SpacePunk]

In case the guys at DMA didn't get the memo, the cat's already out of the bag, pandora's box has already been opened, or .

The majority of the SPAM that's flying around the net isn't even from DMA members. It's all from con and scam artists.

Their move isn't going to change a damn thing in the short or long runs.

-

They don't really care about the spam problem

[noser]

The DMA will also require members that buy access to mailing lists--in which consumers have agreed to receive sales pitches from third parties--to check those names against an e-mail preference roster on its Web site. Addresses on this roster belong to consumers who have chosen not to receive any commercial e-mail.

So one of the ingenious ways they have of preventing spam is by posting a list of addresses on their website... anyone else see a problem with that? It is obvious to me that they don't really care about the spam problem, they just want to look like they are self-regulating so that congress doesn't interfere with their marketing plans.

Not the trouble makers

[Tazzy531]

The problem with this is that the majority of the spam mailers do not belong to the DMA. They don't need to follow the rules under this organization. The ones that do belong to this typically (I didn't say always) have an easy opt out policy. Secondly, the corporate spammers have an entity that could be potentially held liable for spam whereas the individual spammers can move and hide easily.

Re:DMA is really unfair

[Lumpy]

Why sign up? I enjoy verbally abusing telemarketers. I espically enjoy the ones that give me the 800 number to their fax machine and send them a 600 page document from my computer or a bit of real fun... send them the contents of /dev/random... nice pages full of line noise.

yes, I'm wierd and probably a part of a tiny minority. but I gladly abuse any company that has the gall to call me at 10:30pm and wake my daughter.

I have always wondered.... is telemarketing a part of a companies life cycle when they no longer can attract customers legitimately so they have to try this just before death?

So what

[mrroot]

A DMA representative said the organization plans to announce the new rules governing commercial e-mail next week. The trade group, one of the largest in the United States with 5,000 members, includes such retailers as Amazon.com, Land's End and Eddie Bauer.

So what? Now Amazon and others will be able to send us email and claim they are within the guidelines set forth by the DMA. These guidelines are nothing more than a mechanism to allow them to legitimize their spamming operations.

Here's an idea

[mrroot]

How about not making it illegal to spam but make them buy a "license" to spam, and renew it every year... something like $100/yr even would weed out alot of the real clowns, but it wouldn't be so prohibitive as violating their rights.

OK, it's just an spur of the moment thought, so take it easy on me.

Re:Here's an idea

[DavidTC]

That's actually a great idea.

Of course, no one would have to accept the spam, we would still run blacklists like normal...it'd be like a tax on the stupid! Or, alternately, if they don't pay the tax, we'll have a reason to have them arrested.

This is not enough anyway...

[mi]

The only acceptable method for adding anyone to a mailing list is the double opt-in:

1. Until I ask to be added -- don't contact me.
2. When I ask -- presume it was not me and e-mail me a confirmation request.
3. Only, when such a request comes back affirmative can you add me.

DMA, which wants to spam you, does not need to invent its own guidelines. They are already there -- by people, who know more about the Internet and e-mail, than, perhaps, the entire DMA put together...

Re:This is not enough anyway...

[Pituritus Ani]

Don't call that "double opt-in." By calling it that, you play right into the spammers' language games. It's only one opt-in, but it's required that they verify with the person who they claim so opted. Maybe "verified opt-in" would be better.

Re:Self-Moderation

[Tackhead]

> Well what i got from the article was that they wouldn't spam you unless you asked for it.

No, the DMA's position is that they will spam you until you ask them to stop.

From the article:

> "give consumers notice and choice before sending commercial e-mail "

Translation: "To continue receiving exciting offers from us, you need do nothing! Or you can opt out by jumping through hoops..."

> "...or before selling, sharing or renting their e-mail addresses to a third party"

All that means is that on the web site, or in the spam, there'll be a link to a "Privacy policy" that says "We reserve the right to work with partners to offer you goods and services we think may be of interest..."

> " In addition, commercial e-mail must clearly identify the sender, represent the subject line accurately, and provide contact information."

We won't forge headers. But we'll still spam you.

> " Above all, the marketer must let consumers opt out of further communications in every e-mail. "

"We received your request to be opted out of the FORD-OWNERS93133 mailing campaign."

But tomorrow, you'll get spam as part of the "FORD-OWNERS93134" campaign. You weren't interested in that 2002 Ford Escort with air conditioning, maybe you'll be interested in a 2002 Ford Escort without air conditioning.

Sorry, this is more of the same DMA dreck -- opt-out, not confirmed opt-in. It's spam. And they can shove it up their asses until it carves its initials in tomorrow's turd.

Re:DMA not really the problem...

[AntiNorm]

Since the addresses were never used anywhere other than the DMA list, it became obvious that either the DMA was spamming from that list, or they were making it available to spammers

Unless the DMA itself is sending out the spam (not likely), they have to make the list available to spammers. How else would the list work?

yeah, right, how the DMA protects you...

[swschrad]

here's how the DMA protects you today. A link in the local newspaper jumps me to the DMA website, www.the-dma.org, with the big white box on the left to opt out of unwanted solicitations. the resultant page has internal links to click to opt out of (a) direct mail, (b) telemarketing, (c) spam. all three links go to a 404 page that says "We're sorry, this feature is currently unavailiable."

yessir, the DMA is shit hot for our privacy.

why not jump over to the FTC, http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/donotcall/in dex.htm, instead and file a comment on the Proposed Rule to put the government into whack-a-mole mode on telemarketers. that's the best game in town today.

if the FTC link is munged up, and I see a space in preview inside the word INDEX, just hit www.ftc.gov and click likely-looking boxes twice to get there.