Cornucopia of Spam · Slashdot Mirror

Posted by chrisd on Wednesday March 5, 2003 @01:58AM from the i-don't-have-to-sing-the-song dept.

Eric Savage writes "The IETF, through IRTF, has formed an Anti-Spam Research Group. If there is any hope for a technical solution the problem, it appears the first significant step has been taken. More info here in itworld and here in ComputerWorld." Three more exciting spam related posts inside, including news from the Nevada legislature regarding spam, Arkansas dislike of the meaty email and "when students go bad" torklugnutz writes "The NV state assembly just voted 41-0 in favor of a bill which allows spam recipients to collect up to $500 per piece of spam. The new law also requires ADV to be added to the subject line so that recipients can more easilly identify unwanted ads. In addition, spoofing of sender's email address or having an invalid return address is made illegal. The old law imposed a $10 fine on spammers, but required prosecuters to collect it. This law will, more than likely, increase my chances of reading the spam I get so that I can try to cash in. So, maybe I CAN make an incredible amount of money from this "Amazing Offer""

And in Arkansas: A.G. Russell writes "With House Bill 1008, Subtitled "Unsolicited Commercial and Sexually Explicit Electronic Mail Fair Practices Act." Arkansas looks to join other states that have criminal and cival legislation in place to deal with spam. Can we help them craft this?"

And from academia: mansemat writes "Seems spammers are using a new tactic these days by paying students to send spam over univeristy networks. This particular student will be disciplined by losing his computing privileges, and being educated on the policy he violated. One can only hope the education includes being subscribed to every pr0n, male enhancement, mortage, etc. spam on the planet." Should have booted the miscreant.

1 of 199 comments (clear)

Re:Laws *will* help by kenthorvath · 2003-03-05 05:00 · Score: 1, Troll

Does anyone believe that SPAMming should really be illegal? Why stop there? Why not make all encrypted emails illegal as well? Then we could go onto anti-government email and other such ridiculous things. The same goes for the telephone. I do hate spam and telemarketers, but I'd rather have 500 emails/day then have my freedom of speech impaired.
Now a do not call/email list is different. You are telling these people that you do not want them to talk to you. Violations of this type could be a type of harassment. That being said, the best way to fight technology is with technology. Legislation does not work - it only serves to restrict civil liberties.
Perhaps it's time for a new mail protocol that employs public key encryption with signed messages that get filtered on the server level. This way, somebody who gets added to your "go-away" list cannot disguise himself as someone else, or at least someone who is on your "love to hear from you" list.
Slashdot crowds are fickle, one minute they are all up in a rage over freedom of speech and civil liberties and "code is speech", free P2P, etc... and the next they are calling a legislative "jihad" against the very technology that they don't want regulated. Give me a break.