Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Spam Site Accused of Spamming, Fixes Error
An anonymous reader writes "According to this article on CNN, banthespam.com is accused of spamming its visitors. Excerpt: Even if an Internet user chose not to receive e-mail updates from the Telecommunications Research and Action Center, one of the effort's sponsors, the Web site replied with the message: 'You are currently signed up for news and information.' This doesn't help guys . . ." As the article states, the problem was quickly caught and corrected -- and banthespam.com looks like another force for good in the world.
While it's not really a good thing for any large or visible company to make a mistake, it happens. This was probably just a 1-line or even 1 word fix in a script. Hopefully this won't become a reason for users to roast banthespam over a slow grill. People always seem to remember the bad things most... must be human nature.
However, it is somewhat of an amusing irony to cover in slashdot...
Okay, so the web designer put the wrong message for the 'No mail' option. It was an embarrassment to the site and somewhat funny to the rest of us but not really all that news worthy.
Oh well, at least I went to there site and read an article that did have value. Apparently the Telecommunications Research and Action Center is asking the FTC to rule that unsolicited commercial email is "deceptive and therefore unlawful"
The email would have to meet certain criteria that are similar to the Washington State's anti-spamming law.
Email would be considered illegal if it:
Misrepresents the sender (in source or routing information)
Misrepresents the subject or content of the email
Fails to provide reliable contact information for the real party in interest
Fails to provide a reliable opt-out system
Is sent to an individual who has opted out or resigned from sender's list, or to whom sending unsolicited, commercial email is otherwise prohibited by law.
Laws like this are seen as being a balance between our rights to privacy and a companies rights to communicate. Unfortunately, with any 'opt-out' strategy, the victim is overwhelmed by SPAM because he/she can not opt out as fast as his or her name is sold.
We really need laws that make the selling of email addresses illegal.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Which means, I suppose, that spammers are "evil."
*sigh*
Look, I can understand if you find spam annoying. I sometimes do, as well. But evil? Spammers, like 'em or not, are just exercising their rights to free speech and to free capitalistic enterprise. These are the two things that Osama bin Laden and his ilk hate most about the West; it's interesting that you would choose to call the bulk mailers evil instead of the terrorists who have our way of life in their targets.
Get some perspective, please. There IS a lot of evil in this world, but it ain't coming from American small businesses.
Well, none of the blocking software actually "fights spam" under your definition either. Because all they do is block you from seeing it -- depending on where the anti-spam software is, the bandwidth has already been used to the ISP (at a minimum) and perhaps to you.
Actually, Sneakemail and its ilk do improve things, or at least shifts them. Disable an address that's being spammed and you'll no longer receive the mail. It won't use any bandwidth from the ISP to you, and it won't even use bandwidth to the ISP (note - some of the bandwidth gets shifted to Sneakemail, who tells the sender "no such address" when the SMTP connection is made -- which you noted). Even so, this is a net reduction in the bandwidth used, which is more than the anti-spam filters can say.
Neither is an ideal solution. Until we get some serious anti-spam laws there's nothing that'll be done.