Slashdot Mirror


Direct Marketers Association Asks To Be Regulated

alanjstr writes "Recognizing that with all the spam out there, the legitimate messages don't get through, the Direct Marketers Association (DMA) has decided that they will no longer oppose federal anti-spam legislation, but that forged headers should be illegal."

6 of 314 comments (clear)

  1. Illegal forged headers? by sirfuzz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What about when I have one mail address on my server with a lot of aliases pointing to it? Can I still "forge" the headers to say that it's coming from one of the aliases?

    Yes, yes - this really isn't "illegal"... My question is, when does it become illegal?

  2. Re:And in further news by rgmoore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not really. They just want a law that will shut down all of the small time spamvertizers so that the big boys will have the market all to themselves. They want the new Federal law, which would only forbid sending mail with forged headers but not other noxious practices like opt-out only lists- to superceed stronger state laws. IOW, they want a Federal law that specifically legalizes spam with a few trivial limitations. Don't think that this will result in you receiving any less spam.

    --

    There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

  3. Beware -- the Microsoft gambit by MacAndrew · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The DMA (or the gun lobby or you name it) gets involved when they see that regulation is inevitable. Their purpose? To "shape" the law according to their perogatives -- i.e., eviscerate it. Microsoft uses a similar strategy with "embrace, extend, extinguish."

    The DMA's job is to promote DMA, not to tailor it to our desires or rights -- requiring opt-out is a good example. They provide a limited opt-out for junk mail and telemarketing primarily to silence their critics and head off decisive government intervention.

    Many states already have anti-spam legislation on the books, but it is rarely enforced because of the difficulty in tracking these cretins down. A federal law would provide uniformity and predictability of everyone's rights and obligations. And hey, it might even work.

    A recent article reported with a straight face a major spammer's contention that they HAD to forge the headers because otherwise anti-spam zealots would complain to their ISP and get them shut down -- making opt-outs impossible. Ha!

  4. Also by ChristopherLord · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Along with such a law, each marketer should have a public/private keyset, and all of their outgoing mail should be signed by that key.

    These advertisers can then pay ISP's a 'distribution fee', which allows mail signed by that marketer's key to pass through the ISP spam filter. This ensures that spam is not free, which will drop the number of spam messages, and will also cause a corresponding increase in quality.

    We are not getting rid of spam, but establishing a reasonable system for permitting its distribution seems fair.

  5. The irony by rjamestaylor · · Score: 5, Interesting
    • Direct Marketers Association
    • Asks To Be Regulated
    At least they can opt-in. . .

    A couple of us around here have been assigned to create direct mail programs and some of these programs, while initially billed as using strictly Opt-In, degraded into Opt-Out and even eventually into a simple spamfest. I admit I sent out two groups of "spam" (though clearly marked according to California regulations, blah, blah) on behalf of a failing employer. I have to admit: it was fun to do (one was for a legitimate product the other was for a MLM, the Amway web effort) and we had fun optimizing the script to pump out more spam. But the list we were given was complete junk! Over 2 million addresses (took a while to load into MySQL from the CSV file)--including my own father's email address! It also included harvested email from die.net. Ever tried to send mail to die.net? It's a great honeypot/tarbaby for spammers. But 2 campaigns were enough for my conscience (we sent less than 500,000 total messages).

    When asked to make a Flash/Windows multimedia program that could automatically extract email addresses from a users machine and send them to a central server--on behalf of serious players in the music industry no less--a couple of us around here drew the line and said "no". [The couple of us I keep refering to no longer work for the slimebucket that wanted to move spyware to a new level in exchange for listening to HipHop tracks.]

    Anyway, when complaining about spam realize that someone with technical know-how enabled the peabrain spammer to do his evil.

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  6. Corporations are not people!!! by fmaxwell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Corporations are people to! i'm serious. They also pay taxes!

    Paying taxes does not make an entity into a person. While there are lawyers who have perverted the word to refer to both corporations and human beings in the same way, we don't have to accept their twisting of the English language.

    If a corporations are people, why didn't Union Carbide get life in prison for the killing 3,800 people in Bhopal, India?

    Why are tobacco companies not being "executed" for killing people? They knowingly sold something that was lethal while lying to the purchasers and claiming that the product was not shown to be harmful. If you started selling arsenic-laced lemonade while claiming that it was safe, you would be in prison or the electric chair.

    When corporations are jailed for criminal acts and their ability to do business is halted during that time, then I'll think about sharing the title "person" with them. As of now, corporations have the rights of people with none of the responsibilities.