Slashdot Mirror


Louisiana Tries Anti-Spam Law

chompyZ writes "The legislative battle against SPAMMING heats-up as a new law became effective yesterday in Louisiana. According to KPLC, the new law requires senders of sexually explicit e-mail to include a note in the subject line, "adv-adult," to let unsuspecting internet users know ahead of time. The Olympian reports that Louisiana officials actually think this will be effective... leaves you wondering if "officials" have any clue how SPAMMERS operate..."

226 comments

  1. Great by justsomebody · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now subjetcs will be

    adv-adult: Enlarge your penis

    Way to go, I just don't know if this way leads somewhere:)

    --
    Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    1. Re:Great by EinarH · · Score: 3, Funny
      I think think this is a *cough* really great idea. And this is *cough* very likely to work.

      But if they had expanded it beyond only adv-adult it would have been so much better.
      Then I could have deleted my scam-419 mail together with the adv-adult mail.

      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

    2. Re:Great by orangesquid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As much as I hate spam, it really bothers me to see any laws which restrict my behavior online. I consider the Internet to be something futuristic, where individuals are free to choose their own code of ethics, rather than having one dictated to them in a larger society, and individuals are free to interpret others' actions as they want and defend themselves as they want. I know that's not very realistic, but the quasi-anarchy "back in the good old days" before the Internet was Serious Business, before the Web was Important was something amazingly freeing and fulfilling. I do not want other people just discovering the realm of computers and global communication to be shoved into just another restrictive, judgemental society like the one in which we all participate in Real Life.

      Spam ruins the online experience in the same way that mass-marketed commercialism does, and I hate to see the Internet become a thing of money and corporate power and not of freedom and individual power, but imposing restrictions doesn't seem to address the issue. However, maybe the problem will always be impossible to solve, because with freedom comes greed, and with freedom comes abuse...

      But don't forget to try our new Suction Pump!!! Garanteed results!!! An inch every week!!! Girls will beg for you!!! Order from our website!!!

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    3. Re:Great by maelstrom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Extremely unrealistic... The same case could be made for Slashdot itself. In the early days of /. there were no user accounts, there was no karma whoring because there wasn't a need for moderation at all. The "community" was small enough that you knew everyone and people could be trusted not to spoof other people. As /. grew, changes had to be made to the social structure in order to cope with scale.

      This is true of any society. This is not anything new, as society changed from small family groups to tribes to cities to city states to nations, more laws and force had to be applied to keep things moving smoothly.

      The challenge isn't keeping a state of "quasi-anarchy" at all costs, and whining about your rights. The challenge is taking responsibility and tutoring your elected officials on how law, technology and society intersect. Personally, I think there should be some regulation on unsolicited commercial email. Back in the good ole days I could actually use my email, now I get 20-25 spams a day vs about 1 or 2 actual useful e-mails. Personally, I find that a great restriction on my behavior and a burden to my resources.

      --
      The more you know, the less you understand.
    4. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, you're totally right. Spammers have a right to use up my mailbox space and my time. Is anyone crying over the illegality of junk faxes? Come on.

      Making laws against spam is not censorship. Stop acting like it.

    5. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      20-25 spams a day is nothing. Come back when your whole meaning of email is destroyed by spammers.

    6. Re:Great by EinarH · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Just to clarify, my post was ment as irony and should be modded Funny if anything.

      But on the restriction/behavior controll vs. freedom subject, and without going too much into the commercialism debate; I do belive that this could have a _limited_ effect within LA. (without knowing much about LA)
      But what I don't understand is why they allow spam (as in unsolicted advertising via smtp) anyway.

      I have yet to see any good arguments why they can not ban sending out *thousands* of emails.
      I don't really belive in the "spam should be protected as freedom of speech". IMO you don't have the right to send a message to someone in a way that forks over the cost to the reciver.
      You can send as much sendmail as you please and you can talk to a person as much as you wan't (within harrasment laws) but no one should have a right to send a advertising to someone.

      As far as I know; baning unsolicted email actually works. Several European countries have done this and this reduces the spam sent from within the country to the country's innhabitants.
      Yes, I know most of the spam is sent from another country, but independant of this the recived spam goes down for the population. With EU (probably ) banning spam within a couple of years the number of spam sent from EU to EU willl go down.

      And I don't belive in "if we allow banning of spam the government may as well reduce our rights (to freedom of speech)". And I consider myself to be among the paranoid people here.

      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

    7. Re:Great by mangu · · Score: 1
      As much as I hate spam, it really bothers me to see any laws which restrict my behavior online


      Yeah, OK, so why can't we break into spammers' systems? It's not a matter of "greed". Them being "greedy" is like Larry Flynt being "obscene", it's just a matter of opinion. However, if there are such things as rules, let them be equal for everybody. If spammers have loopholes by which they can break the rules, then I want loopholes, too! If spammers can abduct email relays, I want to be legally allowed to break into spammers' systems and delete any and all of my email addresses from their databases. After all, spammers do leave trails, where do people who buy those printer cartriges send their money? Why don't cops go after the money trail and get the spammers for the fraud they practice while hiding their email return addresses?

    8. Re:Great by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 1

      That subject line would allow an email filter to get rid of it automatically before anyone ever saw it. Of course, a good filter would already do that, but this would be a way for the ISPs to get into the act without actually censoring any mail that anybody actually wanted and opening themselves up to liability.

      Then again, I'm sure that there is someone who will sue because of his 2-inch penis.

    9. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG, user #638. I bow down to you!

    10. Re:Great by Down+Yonda · · Score: 1

      "adv-adult:I'm naked under these clothes.......ooooh!

    11. Re:Great by orangesquid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess it's that my fear of organized justice as being something exploitable, unfair, and inhuman... I would rather have a vengeful vigilante on my heels than to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and weeks of my life fighting for myself in court just to end up wasting years in jail, because some big corporation has more money and power than me and disagreed with me about something.

      (But, I am rather surprised to see how everyday-normal slashdotters are... there seem to be almost no anarchists, extremists, or serious rebels here, which is unforunate because I hate it when cool places are filled with normality, decency, and everything that escapists and surrealists despise. Where am I supposed to find my fantasy world where I can escape from everything? If the Internet is not the place for small, free communities, then where *is* the right place? Or am I just not looking in the right spots online?)

      But, see, my logical argument is: if there's restrictions places on e-mail, then what's to stop people from silencing me using these restrictions? Suppose I send out e-mails from time to time to various people I have not talked to before but have seen online because I think they might be interested in my band. Now, technically, this is probably "unsolicited commercial e-mail;" but, I feel it's reasonable because (a) it's not mass-mailing; (b) these people are probably interested; (c) I'm not rude or obnoxious about it; and (d) I'm not trying to sell them anything in particular. Now, if there are bans or restrictions on UCE/spam, they could be applied to me if someone decided they didn't like me. I might find myself in legal trouble for doing the online equivalent of finding cool-looking kids out on the street and asking them if they've heard of my band. Some would argue that seeking people to contact is the wrong approach; those people have probably never started a band (or, they had a big crowd of friends who were supportive and contacted their friends, their friends of friends... word-of-mouth advertising).

      (P.S.: When did I whine about my "rights"? <g> Anarchy and a free Internet are not rights; they are incredibly priveleges that continue to amaze me every day with the things they can teach me about myself.)

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    12. Re:Great by seanadams.com · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid your argument only bolsters the parent's point that spam laws are retarded. Slashdot DOES NOT have rules about what you can and can't say, beyond simple junk filters. Neither should email.

      We can solve these problems with technology instead of legislation. I am certain that automated filters + sender-side storage + encryption can solve all of the current problems with email. The *only* challenge is uprooting the established SMTP protocol. I believe that's infeasible. We just have to introduce a new email infrastructure and let people start using it while the old one slowly dies.

      No regulations, let alone an idiotic local US state law, will improve the spam situation.

    13. Re:Great by ibbey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As much as I hate spam, it really bothers me to see any laws which restrict my behavior online.

      Oh, come on. Does the requirement to honestly label the content of a -commercial- message really affect your freedom that much? Businesses -do not- deserve the same rights that private individuals do. As an individual, I believe I have a right to control what mail arrives in my mailbox. That right trumps your right to send me whatever spam you may wish to.

      I think it's high time that more first-ammendment acivists (and I consider myself almost a first-ammendment radical) realize that along with freedom-of-speech comes an equally important right to "freedom not to be forced to listen to someone elses freedom of speech". Historically, there was no need for such a law, since you could always go elsewhere if someone was saying something you didn't chjose to listen to. As media becomes more & more closely intertwined with our lives, however, it's becoming impossible to ignore content that you want to. It's important to remember that the proposed law does not prevent you from sending me as much junk mail as you want, it just allows me to easily filter out any messages that I don't want to recieve before they reach my inbox. Laebling laws such as this one (along with adequately severe penalties to ensure compliance) are the ideal way of deailing with the problem. It allows your freedom-of-speech, and me my freedom-to-ignore.

    14. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it really bothers me to see any laws which restrict my behavior online

      Well, unless you're a spammer, this law won't restrict your behaviour online.

      And if you are a spammer, you deserve everything you get.

      I consider the Internet to be something futuristic, where individuals are free to choose their own code of ethics, rather than having one dictated to them in a larger society

      You are a complete moron.

      You _DO NOT_, under any circumstances have the right to harrass and/or steal. Period.

      This has _NOTHING_ to do with "ethics", this has to do with theft of service.

    15. Re:Great by Moonwick · · Score: 1

      The internet is no less a society than the physical one that surrounds you. Just as in real life, rules must be implemented and enforced to ensure that malevolent individuals do not ruin things for the whole.

      Hippie.

      --
      Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
    16. Re:Great by screenrc · · Score: 1

      > Now, if there are bans or restrictions on
      > UCE/spam, they could be applied to me if someone decided
      > they didn't like me.



      The problem, therefore, is not restrictions through law.
      The real problem is that someone decided to get you, and
      they could do it in million different ways. The end result
      is that you spend a 1-2 days in jail until you talk to
      the judge, and then hope for the best.



      This is the standard procedure of our legal system until a
      judge decides what to do with you. I don't think the system
      is great, but neither it is not terrible.



      Still don't like it? Like we said, the truly is with our
      overzealous guardians of God, Country, and Family Values
      (also know as Fadayeens), combined with that
      it is troublesome to find justice without inconvenience.



      Your problem has little to do with new laws from wise men.

    17. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quote: Where am I supposed to find my fantasy world where I can escape from everything? If the Internet is not the place for small, free communities, then where *is* the right place? Or am I just not looking in the right spots online?)


      Try Freenet

    18. Re:Great by ibbey · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid your argument only bolsters the parent's point that spam laws are retarded. Slashdot DOES NOT have rules about what you can and can't say, beyond simple junk filters. Neither should email.

      You're right. Which is surprising since you are so completely off base. The law in question DOES NOT effect what you can say in email. The law simply requires that certain types of messages (specifically, adult-oriented advertising) be accurately described in the subject. This DOES NOT limit your freedom of speech. It only affects my ability to decide whether I want to listen or not.

    19. Re:Great by umeboshi · · Score: 1

      "The law simply requires that certain types of messages (specifically, adult-oriented advertising) be accurately described in the subject."

      "This DOES NOT limit your freedom of speech."

      law, require, freedom, limit -> ?

    20. Re:Great by Bram+Stolk · · Score: 1

      If nothing else, the compulsory prefix will be
      a big help to spam-filters. Also, the omission
      of the prefix will be a good excuse for legal
      action against spammers, which is a good thing.

      --
      Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
    21. Re:Great by McDutchie · · Score: 2, Funny
      (But, I am rather surprised to see how everyday-normal slashdotters are... there seem to be almost no anarchists, extremists, or serious rebels here, which is unforunate because I hate it when cool places are filled with normality, decency, and everything that escapists and surrealists despise. Where am I supposed to find my fantasy world where I can escape from everything? If the Internet is not the place for small, free communities, then where *is* the right place? Or am I just not looking in the right spots online?)
      Two words:
      1. Usenet
      2. IRC
      Have fun. :)
    22. Re:Great by olderchurch · · Score: 1
      (But, I am rather surprised to see how everyday-normal slashdotters are... there seem to be almost no anarchists, extremists, or serious rebels here,

      Start reading at -1 and you will see...

      --
      Disclaimer: This opinion was created without the use of any facts
    23. Re:Great by orangesquid · · Score: 1

      As I skim through some of these very interesting and well-thought-out replies such as yours, I regret the radicalness present in my original post, although perhaps it was for the best, since it created a thread which has generated a lot of useful insight.

      You make a good point when you say, "Does the requirement to honestly label the content of a -commercial- message really affect your freedom that much? Business -do not- deserve the same rights that private individuals do."

      That's a very good point; businesses do not deserve the same freedoms and pleasures that individuals can receive! A business's goal is typically to make money (otherwise it would go out of business... hehe, get it? ;), which is more selfish than most people's goal in life: have fun, accomplish some things, and be nice to some people. Judging on the giving-to-society aspect, it is clear that, in general, individuals are more intellectually and emotionally useful to society, although businesses provide more goods, and that means individuals are Very Important People.

      It *is* really funny how the media is becoming so embedded in our lives (assuming you mean the U.S. or a country with a similar society)... and if it weren't for the Discovery Channel, my TV would probably have been toast ages ago.... *g*

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    24. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trouble with your philosophy is that the internet is (part of) Real Life. And common decency online equals real common decency. Having your ability to do something foul curtailed is just something that you have to live with if you don't want foul stuff to happen.

      FYI in the early nineties I traced two people who sent me abusive followups to Usenet posts to their unversities and had them disciplined on the same basis as if I had been harrassed on their campus.

    25. Re:Great by hankaholic · · Score: 1
      I have yet to see any good arguments why they can not ban sending out *thousands* of emails.
      1. Mailing lists.
      2. There is no central authority which counts total emails sent by a given individual or host. The closest that you could come to this is not accepting more than N emails from a given host in a given day.

        Go work technical support at an ISP, if you've never done so already. Now imagine having to explain to customers that their grandmother's mail is probably getting rejected because "our mail system has already gotten 1500 emails from AOL today, so it's temporarily rejecting everything from them until sometime after midnight."

        Given that spammers often use unreported open relays, you're probably not going to be able to know how many messages a spammer has sent through several open relays to thousands of hosts.

        In essence the second reason why "they cannot ban sending out *thousands* of emails" is that there is no "they" to count emails sent.

      If you can explain how this would be technically possible without restricting legitimate uses of email (including opt-in mailing lists, such as the Debian Weekly News) please feel free. It may be that you haven't thought through this idea very much, or you may have addressed these problems in your thoughts but omitted the details from your above post.
      --
      Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
    26. Re:Great by brian728s · · Score: 1

      The problem is that a lot of spammers are just one person. I have to agree that any government (esp one like the united states has now) making any kind of law that exerts itself over the internet can't be good. As for stopping spam, google "spam pal". It works with ANY pop3 email client that allows simple message rules (ie, if "spam" is in subject, move to "spam" folder). How is works is you point your email client to localhost, and make your username @. Spampal downloads your email, marks anything it thinks is spam with a spam tag, and then acts like a mail server and allows your email client to download it. options include leaving it as it is (with spam tag), deleting it, moving it to a folder, etc. (depending on your client)

    27. Re:Great by 87C751 · · Score: 1
      The law simply requires that certain types of messages (specifically, adult-oriented advertising) be accurately described in the subject. This DOES NOT limit your freedom of speech.
      Do you insure that when you speak to someone in person, that your conversation's headers accurately reflect the content of that conversation?

      Spam laws do affect freedom of speech, in the same manner as "Fire" vs. "Theater". But as spam does not have the same direct impact on public safety as does shouting "Fire" in the classic example, the lines of demarcation will be understandably fuzzier. That is where the problem lies. Without a precise definition (and it is very difficult to create a completely unambiguous definition of spam), the spam laws will sometimes be applied to cases that are not spam. Even worse, it is exactly that kind of abuse that could lead to the legal appointmant of a spam-classification czar, and the requirement that the czar (or his minions) pass judgement on every email that is sent.

      But that shouldn't bother J. Random Email-user. After all, he need only change his outgoing SMTP settings to point to omnivore.usps.com and he'll notice nothing.

      --
      Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
    28. Re:Great by Steve+B · · Score: 1
      As much as I hate spam, it really bothers me to see any laws which restrict my behavior online
      Yeah, OK, so why can't we break into spammers' systems?

      The two legal reforms that I can think of that would put a dent in spamming are:

      1. Treat any attempt to bypass spam filtering as a form of cracking, just like an attempt to bypass a password or any other system designed to keep unauthorized persons out of your computer.

      2. Define spammers as "outlaws" in the classic sense of the term (i.e. outside the protection of the law -- if you can prove that the victim was a spammer, you can crack his box, beat him up, whatever).

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    29. Re:Great by ibbey · · Score: 1

      The problem is that a lot of spammers are just one person.

      The size of the business is irrelevent. If the main reason you want to contact me is commercial, then it is commercial speech. As such, it deserves a different set of protections from my freedom of speech.

      Spam Pal, and similar tools (I use Spamcop.net personally) are great but they only help so much. I still need to manually go through all of the mail marked as a spam, and make sure that it really is, otherwise I may miss an important message. In addition, many actual spams don't get caught by the filters. The more people use that sort of spam filter, the better spammers will become at outwitting them. Labelling laws don't require a complicated set of filters to work, just a simple "if subject starts with 'adv-adult:', delete". Your friends an associates should be smart enough to not to use that in there subject, so there is extremely little chance of false positives, so you can safely delete the mail without screening it first.

    30. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Inbox mail filters are too little, too late. Inbox filters as a cure for UCE assume unlimited bandwidth, so that any volume of messages of any size costs the receiver nothing and causes the receiver no inconvenience. Exactly the argument spammers use to justify wasting our time and bandwidth with their digital sewage.

      Bandwidth costs money! It costs the value of wasted time to download unwanted mail through slow links, or increased costs to pay for faster links (if you can get one). It costs the lost opportunities because real business messages get bounced from over-quota mail accounts, or get lost in the flood of herbal aphrodisiac ads. It costs the time to install mail filters and maintain ever-changing filter files.

      UCE is a telemarketer making collect calls. UCE is snail mail ads sent postage due. UCE is the door-to-door solicitor who won't can't comprehend the phrase "Go away and don't ever come back! And UCE disparages the reputation of the fine processed meat sold by Hormel.

    31. Re:Great by ibbey · · Score: 1

      It *is* really funny how the media is becoming so embedded in our lives (assuming you mean the U.S. or a country with a similar society)

      Just to clarify, I'm using media in the broadest sense here. Certainly TV is media, but under the definition I'm using here, email is also.

      Another example of the sort of advertising that this would effect is location based telemarketing, ie whe you walk past a restaurant, your cell-phone rings and tells you about the great specials they're having. That is an unreasonable intrusion into your private life, and you should have the right to choose whether you want to recieve that sort of advertising or not. I don't know of anyone using this sort of advertising, but the technology exists (it has been covered on slashdot), and it's only a matter of time.

      Basically, in my opinion, ANY advertising that requires some sort of action on your part (pressing delete, answering the phone) and is not specifically tied to something you are getting value in return from (reading a magazine, watching televison, using a website) should be required to be appropriately labeled and a mechanism to avoid such advertising should be in place. Otherwise, as technology advances, it will become impossible to not be completely drowned out by such advertising.

    32. Re:Great by ibbey · · Score: 1

      "This DOES NOT limit your freedom of speech."

      law, require, freedom, limit -> ?


      The law already states that commercial speech requires a higher standard of honesty then non-commercial speech (see false-advertising laws). This law doesn't prevent you from saying what you want. It only requires that the nature of the content is accurately described. Could this be seen as an infringement of someone first ammendment rights? Probably, but the infringement is ridiculously minor. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the first ammendment grants you the right to say whatever you want, but doesn't say that I am required to listen to you. The first ammendment was drafted at a time when it was easy to avoid speech you didn't agree with. Since email, telemarketers, and cellular telemarketers no come to you, it is time the law took into consideration your "freedom-to-ignore", and required appropriate labeling of commercial messages, calls, etc.

    33. Re:Great by EinarH · · Score: 1
      I'm thinking about restricting the possibility to send out mail but about providing laws that makes it illegal to send out unsollicted email(spam) I did not think about some central(government) or decentralized(ISP) autority restricting the flow of emails.

      I'm a subsricber to a Debian list and i would hate if if that list would have to disappear.
      There will of course be a decision to make wheter an email sent out is spam or not but I do think that the law could be formulated in a way that don't restrict ordinary communication.
      The obvious analogy would be laws that makes it illegal to kill people in some cases (self defence) but illegal in other situations (drive by shooting).

      Wheter the law(s) are federal or up to the states woul of couse be up to each country. I'm really not that familiar with the how USA does this but i would assume that a federal law would be better since it would prevent one single state (Florida ? )to become safe haven for spam.

      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

    34. Re:Great by ninewands · · Score: 1
      Quoth the poster:
      But, see, my logical argument is: if there's restrictions places on e-mail, then what's to stop people from silencing me using these restrictions? Suppose I send out e-mails from time to time to various people I have not talked to before but have seen online because I think they might be interested in my band.

      I fail to detect any "restrictions" in the Louisiana statute. What I see is a "truth in labeling" law that requires specific wording in the subject line of a narrowly defined class of unsolicited commercial e-mail messages. All this law will do is make it easier for the spam recipient to filter the e-mail into the bit bucket automatically. It doesn't even help conserve bandwidth ... all it does is allow an e-mail user to say, "I don't want to see that on my screen."

      A "restriction" on the content of an e-mail message would quickly run afoul of the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution and (I am guessing here) the Louisiana Constitution because it would be a "prior restraint" (term of art) on the content of speech. Even though "commercial speech" (advertising) is not granted the same degree of protection as political and artistic speech are, prior restraints on the content of ANY speech are presumed to be unconstitutional unless they meet very narrowly drawn rules. Granted, the rules are somewhat easier to satisfy for commercial speech but they still have to be met if the restriction is to live.

      In short, I don't see what your problem with this law is. Just as the on/off switch and the channel selector allows you to determine what comes into your house from the broadcasters/cable companies, this law allows internet users to control what does and does not appear in their in-boxes. I think this is a GOOD law (which surprises me since it's coming from Louisiana) even though enforcement will be difficult and probably sporadic.
  2. At least it is a try... by eaddict · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Though the paragraph is somewhat pessimistic the concept is a good one. Why not try? If it works, great, if not then tweak it till it does. I hope more states try something.

    --
    "If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
    1. Re:At least it is a try... by dagarath · · Score: 1

      I agree, properly labeled spam is a step in the right direction. I doubt it will work. And, enforcement is an entirely different matter.

    2. Re:At least it is a try... by Arker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not a step in the right direction at all. It's a step toward what the spammers want - a legal backdrop to claim that what they're doing is ok. A step in the right direction would be to stop spamming, not to label their spam so they can then claim it's legal for them to steal.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    3. Re:At least it is a try... by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not a step in the right direction at all. It's a step toward what the spammers want - a legal backdrop to claim that what they're doing is ok. A step in the right direction would be to stop spamming, not to label their spam so they can then claim it's legal for them to steal.

      One of the things it also may provide is a basis for prosecution. Most spammers will not comply because they know its easy to filter it out, and non-compliance is a reason to prosecute. Even though the prosecution may not be successful, one problem we have is a lack of legal precident.

      First we thin the herd by creating a law that they will break (adding the tag in the subject line), making it harder to be a spammer, and thus, less spammers. Just the fear of possible prosecution will help, and some high profile cases that cost the spammers real money will eventually help more.

      Next, create laws that allow companies to use email where it is appropriate such as current customers, genuine opt-in, critical announcements to ex-customers for security issues. A strict, but fair law that lets Sears, Walmartl, or your corner grocery store use email in a responsible way. This way they know where they stand, and legitimate companies will support it. To say one kind of email is unacceptable, you have to declare what kind of email is acceptable.

      I believe that if you could reduce the noise by 70% by thinning the herd this way and legitimize use that is legitimate, it will be much easier to track down the real problem spammers. Its going to take years to deal with spam, but this law may be a worthwhile first step.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    4. Re:At least it is a try... by Trick · · Score: 1

      A good reason not to do it: California has a similar law already on the books. Supposedly, any spam sent to someone here has to contain "adv:" in the subject line.

      Of the thousands of spam I've received today, not one has it. The law is completely useless, and not worth what it cost me to have it printed, debated and passed.

    5. Re:At least it is a try... by http · · Score: 1

      B I N G O
      thank you, Arker. we are not paying money to subsidise other people's publicity.
      repeat after me: advertising must not be sent collect. advertising must not be sent collect. advertising must not ...

      --
      If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
      3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
    6. Re:At least it is a try... by ibbey · · Score: 1

      It's a step toward what the spammers want - a legal backdrop to claim that what they're doing is ok.

      No, it's exactly the right way to handle things. This law gives you an easy way to filter spam accurately, at your ISP, while not creating a slippery-slope for freedom-of-speech issues. Because this makes filtering spam at the ISP level easy & accurate, you can prevent spammers from stealing from you by just blocking there email. Severe non-compliance penalties help ensure that the process works.

      The only problem with this sort of law is that it really needs to be implemented nationally. Individual states probably won't have the resources to enforce the laws to the standards necessary to make them effective. If the law was implemented nationally, then spammers would begin to rethink their line of work.

    7. Re:At least it is a try... by ibbey · · Score: 1

      A good reason not to do it: California has a similar law already on the books. Supposedly, any spam sent to someone here has to contain "adv:" in the subject line. Of the thousands of spam I've received today, not one has it. The law is completely useless, and not worth what it cost me to have it printed, debated and passed.

      The problem with this law is that for it to be effective, it really needs to be national. In my opinion, it is the best possible way to prevent spam, but for it to work, it needs severe penalties & effective enforcement. Individual states don't have the resources necessary to enforce this sort of law with the vigor necessary to make it work.

    8. Re:At least it is a try... by Licensed2Hack · · Score: 1

      Maybe not. If we get all 50 U.S. states to pass different anti-spam laws, plus lots of other countries, it will become very difficult for spammers to follow this tangle of laws.

      Two things that need to be done though. First we need anti-spam laws to target more than just porn. I don't read my spam, but most of it doesn't appear to be porn. Viagra, second mortgage, ink jet refills, that kind of crap. Might not be able to drill down and target everything.

      Second we need to make it illegal to spoof *ANY* email headers. Valid return email, originating IP, everything.

      The only thing that will seriously hurt spam will be opt-out lists, just like the new one with the telemarketers. All spammers must check the list before each spam run and clean their databases of those that opt-out.

    9. Re:At least it is a try... by Arker · · Score: 1

      No, you're wrong on both counts. There is no 'freedom of speech issue' with spam, and filtering doesn't prevent the theft.

      This law is idiotic, and very much a step in the wrong direction. If you want a legal solution, ask your congressman to propose an amendment to the junk spam act making it explicit that it applies to email.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    10. Re:At least it is a try... by Arker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Spammers don't make any attempt to obey the rules we already have, why do you think a bunch of confused legislation would change that?

      The people backing the idea of legislation on spam include the really big spammers, and this is the danger. Any national legislation is going to have nice big holes for 'legitimate' corporate spammers to continue to spam, while attempting to put their more entrepeneurial, less established competitors out of business. This is not acceptable at all.

      The only thing that will seriously hurt spam will be opt-out lists, just like the new one with the telemarketers. All spammers must check the list before each spam run and clean their databases of those that opt-out.

      This, too, is wrongheaded. There is no need for an 'opt-out' list, and only spammers want such a thing. People that run mailing lists of any sort need an 'opt-in' list and they need to retain evidence that every address on it did indeed opt-in, from what IP, in what manner, on what day, and they need to keep the confirmation email that was sent back to them before the name was added. Do that, and this 'opt-out' database is superfulous. All truly legitimate bulk emailers do that. The rest are spammers, whatever their corporate backing and regardless of how many congresscritters they own. There is no need to legitimize the spammers by letting them run a check against this 'opt-out' database and then happily spam everyone that isn't on it.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    11. Re:At least it is a try... by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      And while we're at it, let's make it illegal to run Nigeria 419 scams! And to abuse hijacked computers!

      Wait a minute, both those already are illegal, at the national level. And spammers mysteriously keep doing them...

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    12. Re:At least it is a try... by ibbey · · Score: 1

      As I said, the problem is one of enforcement. If there is a national mechanism to track down & punish spammers, and if the punishment is severe, the laws will work. Put a few spammers in jail for 5 years, and pretty soon, people will start to realize that maybe this isn't the best line of work after all. Will it absolutely stop spam? No, but I believe that it is the best option we have to address without dramatically effecting freedom-of-speech.

    13. Re:At least it is a try... by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      You honesly think arresting people is somehow less dangerous to freedom of speech than simply blacklisting ISPs into backruptcy who host them?

      I mean, I have nothing against arresting spammer, or even executing them, but getting the government involved is the most dangerous WRT freedom of speech, not the 'best option that doesn't limit it'.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    14. Re:At least it is a try... by ibbey · · Score: 1

      I mean, I have nothing against arresting spammer, or even executing them, but getting the government involved is the most dangerous WRT freedom of speech, not the 'best option that doesn't limit it'.

      As I've said in numerous other messages, there is a big difference between commercial speech and other forms of speech. Under current law, it is illegal to lie in many forms of commercial speech already (false advertising, the Nike case regarding truth in press-releases). This current law is no different. It DOES NOT restrict what you can say. All it does is say that if you are sending certain types of messages (in the current case, adult-oriented advertising) you must accurately describe the content of your message in the subject.

      Blacklisting ISP's is a great idea, but it has only limited effect. Otherwise, why do I still recieve spam, even though I subscribe to Spamcop.net? If my ISP can safely filter out spam at the server level, without a danger of false positives, why bother blacklisting? And of course if spam is filtered at the ISP level, the economic incentive of spamming suddenly becomes less compelling.

  3. IANA US resident by imbaczek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and so I don't know the law you have there, but won't it just cause spammers to move outside Louisiana?

    1. Re:IANA US resident by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      In order for spammers to move from Louisiana, there would have to be some sort of tech industry here to begin with.

    2. Re:IANA US resident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, Louisiana is one of those states that if the power went out like it did in the northeast no-one would even notice.

  4. Then we'd see... by dapuk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Subject: adv-4dult

    Body:
    Fr33 g0at pr0n c!ick h3re!

  5. donotspam.gov??? by winstarman · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm waiting to see how futile an http://donotspam.gov would be.

    --
    Hard loop..... huh?

    Dynamic Designs
    1. Re:donotspam.gov??? by sharkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      D'oh! I read that as donutspam.gov, and thought it was a pretty good idea. How disappointing.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  6. What about offshore spammers by Chatmag · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most every porn type email I get can be traced back to servers in China or The Netherlands. I doubt those Cajuns will be going overseas anytime soon to prosecute.

    Hmm, just got a new porn email, from Pythonvideo, up in Canada. Hope those guys have a large travel budget.

    --
    Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
    1. Re:What about offshore spammers by McDutchie · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Most every porn type email I get can be traced back to servers in China or The Netherlands. I doubt those Cajuns will be going overseas anytime soon to prosecute.

      Unless the spam you get is actually in Chinese (etc.), in most cases these are actually American spammers buying offshore "bullet-proof" hosting at premium prices in an attempt to prevent being tracked down and to prevent their sites from being shut down. Offshore hosting does not make one immune from prosecution.

      Tracking them down is actually relatively simple; at some point a spammer will want to be paid, so it's a question of following the money. The offshore hosting problem can only be solved by beating the providers (and/or their uplinks) into submission by massive blocklisting.

    2. Re:What about offshore spammers by Chatmag · · Score: 1

      MSNBCis doing a series on spam (who isn't these days!). You are right that it is the money controlling spam, and if people would not buy from the spammers, they would be out of business. Better education of the casual Internet user is another step in the right direction. That could start at the ISP level, when a customer signs up and receives their "Welcome to..." package, and really read it and heed the warnings about unknown attachments in email, spam, etc.

      Of course, most ISP's do not have the time or resources to really educate users, that is why sites such as ours are becoming more popular (google "internet chat safety" and we come up second). I wouldn't go so far as to say a licence to use the Internet should be created, but a proficiency test would help :)

      --
      Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
    3. Re:What about offshore spammers by fermion · · Score: 1
      Actauly a great deal of the repetitive spam I receive now is registered in Canada. Although the service providers are in the US, they are not liable for anything under the current laws. Of course, Canada does not yet have a specific spam law.

      This blanket immunity is what makes the laws pointless. The one entity that can do something about spam is the ISP. However, they don't want to do anything about spam because they can often negotiate lucrative contracts with these customers. Since the ISP has no legal risk, they have a great disincentive to stop spam.

      This is clearly another case of the lawmakers wanting to look like they are doing something, without actually endangering the people who bribe them.

      OTOH, the Texas law which come into effect in a few weeks makes sending sexual material without the proper label a felony. I am collecting emails now, and any that continue past labor day will be duly submitted to the AG. I only wish the ISPs that encourage the spammers, such as whitcon and congentco, and ignore email complaints would be liable as well.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    4. Re:What about offshore spammers by Grey+Fox+LSU · · Score: 1

      I am not a damn cajun. Cajans make up less than 4% of the states population and most of us look and act like we are from the Northeast. Ever been to New Orleans or Baton Rouge. The only real differnce is that we like spicy food, not your bland New England food.. bleh.

      Yue Shee dis is not de wey we done talkin

  7. Of course spammers won't comply.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...but they will be breaking a law in a clear cut manner, and that will be enough to start prosecuting. Jail time is the greatest way to punish someone, you effectively rob them of freedom, which you only have a finite amount of.

  8. Text of bill? by bersl2 · · Score: 1

    I think this might be the text of the bill.

  9. yeah by dtfinch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "adv-adult: Fill your prescriptions from Canada, save up to 80% !"

    That would be really helpful if I not only didn't have a spam filter, but took the time to read every spam that didn't have a pornographic title.

    Of course, this only applies to louisianans who send non-anonymous pornographic spam to other louisianans.

  10. New Laws? by heli0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Spammers are already breaking laws; highjacking mail servers, using trojans such as 'jeem' and 'proxy-guzu' to make others send spam, etc. I doubt this law is going to be the one that finally makes them operate ethically.

    Perhaps they need to also make it a crime for an individual in the state to purchase a product or service from a spammer...

    --
    Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    1. Re:New Laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah...we'll call it the Spam War, and we can punish those stupid enough to actually buy the crap! Maybe we could institute the death penalty for those that buy penis enlargement pills and the DEA could sieze shipments of herbal viagra. Now that the drug war has eliminated drug use, we can move on to spam!

    2. Re:New Laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I posted the original reply and what I was trying to get at was the basic absurdity of locking people up for making what some deem "bad decisions" that have only a marginal effect on others. How many people should we imprison so that you can have a clean inbox?

    3. Re:New Laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you have something! Go after enough of the 10 idiots who actually ORDER something from the spammer and the incentive goes poof! No sales, no % commission or click-back kickbacks - done. If you phone our 800 number in the next 10 minutes, we'll include a free, pre-owned 30Mb harddrive valued at $150. But you have to call in the next 10 minutes!

    4. Re:New Laws? by mary_will_grow · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a GREAT IDEA! It would finally gives us FREEDOM from the SPAMMERS and their WEAPONS OF MASS MAILING. From now on, we should only buy stuff from MICROSOFT CERTIFIED ONLINE STORES.

      THANK GOD WE WON THE WAR ON SPAM.

      --
      Why stick up for big business?
  11. Just a hook by SpacePunk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It may be ineffective in getting spammers to stop their penis and lolita porn spams, but it does give the state a way of prosecuting spammers. Remember, going after a criminal is just a matter of technicality. After all, they got Al Capone for tax evasion of all things.

    1. Re:Just a hook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how are they going to prosecute a spammer when the spam is sent through a open relay in hong kong?

    2. Re:Just a hook by SpacePunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All spammers can be tracked down. Just because it was sent through an open relay doesnt' mean that he can't be found.

    3. Re:Just a hook by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Informative

      If the spammer wants your money, he's eventually going to have to give you a way to contact him. And any cheque or credit-card transaction will leave a paper-trail.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  12. It might not work...but... by Cat_Byte · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least spammers operating inside the U.S. will be a little nervous when they get several notifications from lawyers after it was traced back to them. Bouncing emails off of or originating from foreign mail servers may be effective for not being able to do anything at the ISP level but if they are caught in their apartment standing in a room full of penis enlargement pill cases where the law can reach them at a business level..... They'll probably wish they hadn't sold it to all those prisoners who are winking & saying "you're my little puppy now".

    --
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    1. Re:It might not work...but... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      You're making the assumption that they actually have any penis pills to send out. Wasn't that 20-something spammer in NY/NJ taking the money and not shipping anything? (Betting that no one is going to complain too loudly that they got ripped off and have a tiny little .. brain.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  13. Beware - tampered article. by dmp123 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The above article has been tampered - not just a mirror.

    * Require welfare recipients to immediately begin looking for work once they receive their ass cheeks and to learn how to write a resume or prepare for an interview for a minimum number of hours each week or risk losing their benefits.

  14. How do they plan on enforcing this stupid law(s)? by Dukeofshadows · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most spammers operate out of other countries these days, as do telemarketers. If you ask one the next time one is on the phone, they usually call from another time zone or Canada (if the target is American). Most spammers operate from servers in Canada or small Pacific Rim countries that would prove immune from this law anyway. Note also that most of these sexually explicit e-mails are easily recognized by anyone literate as they tend to accumulate several consonants at the end of the e-mail title that form babble instead of coherent words. I find this an example of people saber-rattling in preparation for re-election campaigns, especially given that several other meaningless "vote-for-me" laws were modified or enacted at the same time. These include:

    -no more execution of the mentally retarded (already mandated by the Supreme Court)

    -allows telemarketers to call you if you "are referred to them by someone you know"

    -increase penalties against drunk drivers who kill or seriously injure people while driving with over a 0.2 blood alcohol level (as if attempted/ murder is not serious enough to get life in prison anyway)

    -no credit card company can give out anything of value to students unless they also get a brochure

    Some of the new laws make sense, but again there are enough of weird and nonsensical laws that I wonder if such would make it to the legislative table, much less get passed, if not for the election coming up in about a year's time. Until then I await the first case of a spammer getting tried under this law if he/she/it/they are operating from another state or country.

    --
    As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
  15. Good spam defence... no way to be correct by ClarkEvans · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As each state and locality implement their own variant, some requiring "ADV:" in the subject line, some requiring "ADULT:" and this one requiring "adv-adult", all a spammer will have to do is claim that he can't possibly satisfy all of the constraints. Why can't we have a header which marks spam as spam, such as "Solicited: no"? Or just require that all spam use "Precedence: bulk"?

    Not that any of this will be effective... but if they have to legislate something...

    1. Re:Good spam defence... no way to be correct by Cat_Byte · · Score: 2, Funny

      If it's legislated to a single header I think it would be more effective against U.S. spammers to also make it illegal to forge the header information showing where it came from.

      One law in place already I'm surprised people haven't used to sue their way to rich & fame is false advertising. If I ordered from each and every one of the penis enlargement spams I should be 1/4 mile or more now in length "guaranteed"! Hey...it didn't say "not cumulative with other enlargement products".

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    2. Re:Good spam defence... no way to be correct by Little+Brother · · Score: 1

      Be careful, what happens if it works? You'd pass out every time you got "excited" due to a loss of bloodflow to the brain. (That and that would be doubleplussunfun to trip over.)

      --

      Little Brother, watching the watchers

    3. Re:Good spam defence... no way to be correct by schon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As each state and locality implement their own variant, some requiring "ADV:" in the subject line, some requiring "ADULT:" and this one requiring "adv-adult", all a spammer will have to do is claim that he can't possibly satisfy all of the constraints.

      Not true.

      Nobody is saying that "you must satisfy all constraints for all users" - they're saying that "for state X, you must use contstraint X, and for state Y, you must use constraint Y, etc.", which is not impossible at all.

      The spammer just has to be careful that he doesn't send a spam with the wrong header to the wrong state... otherwise he can be prosecuted (or sued, depending on the nature of the law he violated.)

      Now, the spammer might just say "I don't know which state they're in" - to which a judge would reply "then you shouldn't have sent them your spam."

      Not that any of this will be effective.

      I disagree - as more of these laws become enacted and used, spammers will start to think twice, and then go back to whatever scams they did to make money before they discovered the internet.

      How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. These laws are our first bite.

    4. Re:Good spam defence... no way to be correct by McAddress · · Score: 1

      If I live somewhere which mandates ADV:, and I lie and say I live in a state requiring ADULT: when registering for an email account, which header are they required to send me?

    5. Re:Good spam defence... no way to be correct by 87C751 · · Score: 1
      Now, the spammer might just say "I don't know which state they're in" - to which a judge would reply "then you shouldn't have sent them your spam."
      And at a stroke, you have either prohibited legitimate bulk mailings (such as genuine opt-in mailing lists) or you have mandated the collection and retention of residential data that are affirmatively associated with a given email address.

      The first one would be overturned by a big restraint of trade action.

      The second, ironically, would probably be welcomed by a lot of parties. It gives the big commercial concerns a mandate to collect and retain the kind of information they all lust after. A marketer's dream! And it puts that data squarely in view of programs like Total^WTerrorist Information Awareness that have already announced their intention to go data mining in non-government databases.

      The problem with spam laws is that they inevitably touch far more than spam.

      --
      Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
  16. Re:The sites already SDed, heres the text. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Non-prick" traffic hours, eh? At least you could have changed it both places it showed up. Poor job. C- work, tops.

  17. adv-adult by SeanTobin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Check out my webcam!

    You can't mod me down! I had adv-adult in the subject line!

    --
    Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
  18. Re:The sites already SDed, heres the text. by heli0 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    +5 Troll

    Good job mods. You could have either 1.read the story and saw it was not sd'd or 2.actually read the post and noticed the alterations.

    --
    Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
  19. The problem by ihummel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem is getting spammers to honor the law. First of all, I assume (the article did not say) that the law can only affect spammers who are based in Louisiana. That will not even chip away at spammers. Even if it were nationwide, it would be very difficult to chase down even those spammers inside our borders, and impossible to affect those outside.

    If it did work, it would make filtering "adult" spam very easy. And I would find it gratifying merely to see a few spammers behind bars, or at least fined out of their livelyhood, for inundating us with piles and piles of junk.

    1. Re:The problem by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      There are at least a couple big name spammers based in Louisiana: Ronnie Scelson and Bubba Catts. Shutting them down would be a good start.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:The problem by wganz · · Score: 1

      There is a major spammer that lives in Slidell. This would cause this slime to either comply or move. The other side of the coin is that would you really want to get caught, convicted, & do jail time in Louisiana?

    3. Re:The problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And I would find it gratifying merely to see a few spammers behind bars, or at least fined out of their livelyhood, for inundating us with piles and piles of junk."

      So one should loose his freedom simply because it bothered you by wasting your damn valuable time eh? I hope you end up in jail yourself. People like you make my sick.

  20. I AM a LA resident... by Dareth · · Score: 1

    And I would figure this will lead to "state sponsored" spam... more of the " we are a non-profit organization" that always wants to not profit with my money!!!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:I AM a LA resident... by justsomebody · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nope, what it would lead to it would be something like that.

      Predefined filter in newer mailers:
      move all mssages where subjects contain adv-adult
      to folder Personal Folders/Scientific matters against world extinction


      and next advertising will be something like protect your self against mom raiding your computer. Use .X.X. mailer

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
  21. Effectiveness... by Drakker · · Score: 1

    Actualy, any law that can be used to prosecute spammer is good. It gives a lot more liability for spammers sending sexualy explicit spam.

    The more laws a spammer breaks, the more time he will spend in jail... Hopefully, else the spammer will have to pay a bigger sum, which is good too.

  22. This is a "good thing" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    because spam tastes horrible in gumbo.

    1. Re:This is a "good thing" by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You should tell that to Louisiana spammer Ronnie Scelson, he seems to think that it's okay. But then he also thinks spamming is okay, and that Scooby-Doo is very deep.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:This is a "good thing" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that why they call Louisiana residents "coon-asses"?

  23. White list by Teun · · Score: 4, Funny

    Handy for those with a spam filter, now you can save the only interesting spam from going to dev/null.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  24. I had an idea by LennyDotCom · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Could someone please make an add-on for your email client to open an email 1000 times in the same window in the background? To every single email you select. Not fetch it off the server 1000 times but just keep opening every email in its own window, in the background. "Why" is because I have noticed that most spam that I am receiving is html with lots of images and the images are loading from someone's server every time I look at one. 10 people using such a feature would be 10,000 page views per spam. Obviously if more then 10 people used it we could pretty much count on heavy graphics laden spams to disappear.

    --
    http://Lenny.com
  25. Re:How do they plan on enforcing this stupid law(s by NOLAChief · · Score: 1
    Disclaimer: I currently live in New Orleans.

    I've noticed that most of the laws in this state are generally several years behind the times unless Washington forces a law upon Baton Rouge. Many of the laws themselves make sense. Drunk driving down here is ridiculous and it's plain stupid to not allow night work esp. on major highways like I-10. Of course, some of them are already under review. Privacy advocates down here are already throwing a fit about the DNA collection program, for example. And then there's that little loophole in the DNC list...I've a feeling someone crossed some palms with silver to get that put in. And they wonder why we finish dead last in state rankings of practically everything.

    (As far as stuff being forced on LA by the feds, drinking age was 18 until a couple years before I moved down here. Congress threatened to take away Fed highway money unless they changed it to 21. Shoulda come to college a couple of years sooner :-()

  26. Re:How do they plan on enforcing this stupid law(s by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 1

    Most spammers operate out of other countries these days, as do telemarketers. If you ask one the next time one is on the phone, they usually call from another time zone or Canada (if the target is American).

    Interesting. From email spammers, this is not news of course, but for telemarketers (something we don't have a problem with in my country, thank heavens) that means that they still must make quite a lot of money if they can afford tons of international calls. Maybe it is really cheap to call Canada->US? Usually, calling to another country is pretty expensive.

  27. This sounds about right by supersoftdrink · · Score: 3, Interesting

    coming from the state that brings you drive-through daquiri huts. There's a law in Louisiana that says you can't have an open container of liquor in your car. Somehow having a styrofoam cup with a lid and a straw is still a closed container. It's things like this that made me move away from that God-forsaken state. :)

    1. Re:This sounds about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wel almost but ussually thay put a small peece of duck-tape over the straw hole and cal it closed contanor. I live in LA.. Hehaw

    2. Re:This sounds about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there is no open container law in Louisiana. So long as the driver is not holding the drink, he's ok. Usually, that means I, er, the driver just hands his drink to the passenger. As your can see, it requires a great deal of effort to be arrested for drunk driving in this state.

    3. Re:This sounds about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. While it is illegal to drive drunk in louisiana, they are currently debating the need for an open container law, with representatives of the liquor industry weighing in with rhetoric (why should it be illegal for a passenger to get hammered in the front seat, for example) and money (of course. Louisiana is like an alcohol theme park).

      In a drive thru daquiri hut, the server cannot give you a straw . . . you have to take one off the counter for yourself; therefore responsibility for your actions falls to you, as they did not enable your drinking.

  28. how i blocked USA spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting


    as 99.9% of spam i recieve is usa based and iam not a USA resident or have any buisness there i managed to block it all simply by filtering the $ sign, works great and hasnt created a false positive in 2years of using this method :-)

    1. Re:how i blocked USA spam by NonSequor · · Score: 1

      This is why we need a spam exchange system similar to that used for taxi drivers.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    2. Re:how i blocked USA spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also block "FREE" (case sensitive). If any of my friends send me an email with "FREE" in it, I don't want to read it anyway.

  29. I AM a Louisiana resident by bersl2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This law will get precisely zero (0) significant coverage in-state. The legislature probably passed it to see if they could get some easy extra money for the budget. If push came to shove, they'd drop the issue. BTW, if you're 65 or over and are a victim, the offender must pay double. Check the notes on the law, in a link I posted earlier.

  30. What? by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    So if I send a saucy email to my girlfriend, I need to include "adv-adult" in the subject line?

    And in the meantime, non-explicet Spam continues to pile up.

    Good job Louisiana.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if I send a saucy email to my girlfriend, I need to include "adv-adult" in the subject line?

      No, I think it's perfectly legal to send yourself 'saucy' emails.

    2. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, watch how the slashdotters don't have girlfriends jokes pile up. You people are such tools its pathetic.

    3. Re:What? by Karn · · Score: 1

      You do know that spam is defined as unsolicited email, right?

      --


      Why do I keep typing pythong?
  31. (sorry for reposting but this one has links) by LennyDotCom · · Score: 1

    I have a knew idea that was inspired by a /. article. Could someone please make an add on for your e-mail client to open an e-mail 1000 times in the same window in the background? To every single e-mail you select. Not fetch it off the server 1000 times but just keep opening every e-mail in its own window, in the background then close when done. "Why" is because I have noticed that: Most spam that I am receiving is HTML with lots of images and the images are loading from someone's server every time I look at one. 10 people using such a feature would be 10,000 "IMG" downloads per/IMG Obviously if more then 10 people used it we could pretty much count on heavy graphics laden spams to disappear. If you look at the HTML you can see what type of effect this will have.

    --
    http://Lenny.com
    1. Re:(sorry for reposting but this one has links) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iam sure the modem users will love that as 80% of the world is still on 56k, never mind broadband caps etc (.au is 1gig a month !)

    2. Re:(sorry for reposting but this one has links) by LennyDotCom · · Score: 1

      Yes you are correct I realize those issues and did not mention them. Sorry but I assume it is a given that modem users and most people for that matter would not use such a feature but it wouldn't take many to put a serious load on spammers servers

      --
      http://Lenny.com
  32. Qui bono? Find & fine THEM! by crovira · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just gather spam and fine the spammer's client.

    That'll make the clients go away and kill the spam industry. Let'em use another means of advertising because spamming will cost them tens of tousands of dollars a copy.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:Qui bono? Find & fine THEM! by phantomlord · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Buy our new penis enlargement pills. Available only from crovira at http://www.softwareprototypes.com/

      Now, I just need to sit back until my competition is fined out of existence. You didn't email it? Oh, well, you're the beneficiary, so we don't believe you.

      --
      Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
  33. Re:How do they plan on enforcing this stupid law(s by BurritoWarrior · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, many spammers operate from INSIDE the United States, they simply hire companies outside the United States to send/route the spam.

  34. What if you send erotic email to your girlfriend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put their adv:adult tag in and get filtered by spamgaurd and call atention to the email so sysadmins will read it.

    Don't put it in and go to jail?

  35. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  36. Re:How do they plan on enforcing this stupid law(s by shepd · · Score: 1

    >Maybe it is really cheap to call Canada->US?

    It is. A local ISP in Canada is handling support calls for some US internet provider (which, I can't remember) because it works out cheaper that way. In "bulk" I believe you could get the minutes for something like 3 cents each...

    In fact, I know a telemarketer that I applied for a job at (hey, I needed the money). They called to many provinces away. Yes, that is much further than calling most eastern places in the US from here. :-)

    --
    If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  37. -1 TROLL Nice subtlly changed article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will the mods please READ THE ARTICLE -
    This is a TROLL please mod it down!

  38. As a Louisianan... by Hayzeus · · Score: 4, Funny
    I am proud of my legislature, and fully expect this to decrease the amount of spam coming into my mailbox.

    By "decrease", of course, I mean "exponentially increase unabated just as it has been doing for the last several years".

  39. Why is this different than snail mail? by pmonje · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I send unsolicited porn through the USPS I can be arrested, why is email any different? You don't hear to many people screaming that not allowing porno junk mail is a violation of freedom of speech.

  40. wow, hilarious man. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read your name as "sharpey" and thought you must own a lot of markers.

    1. Re:wow, hilarious man. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "donutspam.gov"

      how are you reading that?
      it can be "do nuts pam.gov" or "donut spam.gov" or "donuts pam.gov"

      im confused

  41. Protect the less abled members of society. by johanges · · Score: 1
    But according to media reports, some Louisiana-based spammers vow they have a way around the ban. They will originate messages through overseas Internet service providers. Louisiana officials say that won't matter -- the ban is directed at any messages aimed toward Louisiana e-mail addresses.
    and...
    * Outlaw the execution of the mentally retarded, to comply with state and U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
    "Oh, you are a Louisiana legislator? I guess we can't seek the death penalty then..."
  42. How about this? by mangu · · Score: 1
    Perhaps they need to also make it a crime for an individual in the state to purchase a product or service from a spammer...


    The state should be allowed to report publicly on those who purchase products from spammers. How would you feel if your driver's license picture was printed in a billboard with the information "this guy bought penis elargement pills and viagra online... he has a microsoft in his pants!"

  43. PARENT IS A TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is an AC going around accusing people of copy and pasting and chaning articles.

    Its not true. Look at the article yourself!

  44. Re:How do they plan on enforcing this stupid law(s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dammit...why can't I remember my password...anywho --

    "Most spammers operate out of other countries these days, as do telemarketers."

    Wasn't it just noted recently by someone that worked for one of the largest spamming companies that most DO spam directly out of the US using US computers these days? He was saying that most spammers CLAIM to send them from out of the country and to employ folks from overseas, but Overseas Open Relay was just a code name for We Paid A Lot Of Money To Our ISP to Provide Us With A Spam Account In Which They Will Claim Publicly They Never Gave Us.

    I've NEVER had an overseas telemarket call. I usually ask for the number of the company to call back when its convienent and its ALWAYS a US number.

    Don't let them fool you...its coming from next door regardless of what you think...

  45. Why are we shouting? y z chbawqhxebt by preed-man · · Score: 2, Funny
    I hate spamming as much as the next guy, but when did we start SHOUTING everytime we say SPAM, SPAMMING, or SPAMMERS?

    We don't HAVE TO BE JUST LIKE THE SPAMMERS (in only six months!)

    Click to remove and never hear from this /. user again oulsscs tyhecfz gy pz

    kephqfh jt qwuixcdkejmpki bk niomleh n
    t u

  46. Re:aint that MS plan by dagamore · · Score: 0

    isint this what MS does all the time, take a good idea, and send it out in to the world, and test it later, and then try to tweak it untill it is fixed, or they have a new product to sell us, win ME anyone?

  47. Vigilante justice by coyote-san · · Score: 2, Funny

    You want to see an online community where we all live by our own code of ethics?....

    Fine. Earlier today I caught some asshole trying to run his spam through my mail server. The headers also showed him forging email addresses in my own domain name.

    My "own code of ethics" is to pound this guy into a bloody pulp, then pound him some more. I doubt that you'll find many people in this situation who disagree with this attitude - this jerk is trying to profit by abusing my good name! He doesn't care that his actions will result in me getting bounce messages, angry responses, and possibly even being blacklisted. Hell, that's his PLAN!

    Do you really want to turn us loose on the net as vigilantes enforcing our own law? Even if I might have qualms about taking out his upstream ISP - hell taking out his entire country's net - if it's necessary to make him stop, others won't hold back.

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    1. Re:Vigilante justice by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      Do you really want to turn us loose on the net as vigilantes enforcing our own law?

      On second thought, no.
      On first thought, yes.

      In the heat of the moment, you do what seems best at the time. Law must be more deliberate and must take the time to cool down.

      If the net is unsafe for spammers, that's fine by me. I suspect that a bit of vigilanteism will be more effective than legislation. Retribution as it's happening is methinks rather less susceptible to forging and spoofing.

  48. -1 TROLL - very funny (NOT) Re:PARENT IS A TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    * Require welfare recipients to immediately begin looking for work once they receive their ass cheeks and to learn how to write a resume or prepare for an interview for a minimum number of hours each week or risk losing their benefits.

    Its right there.

  49. Here's a novel idea by mabu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let's pass a law that forces district attorneys to actually prosecute spammers that break the law.

    1. Re:Here's a novel idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor DA's would be SWAMPED. Just like a certain TX govt branch after Clinton legalized 4.7 million illegals...

    2. Re:Here's a novel idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sure as hell wouldn't swamp them to prosecute just five spammers a year. If instead of completely ignoring anti-spam laws, as the Attorney Generals Offices of several states currently do, they bothered to uphold the law in just a handful of cases then perhaps the anti-spam laws might actually reduce spam by striking a little bit of fear into spammers. Without any enforcement whatsoever, the existing anti-spam laws serve no purpose other than to make DA's look like incompetent slacking boobs.

  50. Re:How do they plan on enforcing this stupid law(s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We Paid A Lot Of Money To Our ISP to Provide Us With A Spam Account In Which They Will Claim Publicly They Never Gave Us."

    Their ISP must be CogentCo.

  51. Not ideal, but still somewhat useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ideal would be making spam stop completely. That's a pipe dream, so I'll accept things like this. I figure it'll make a few of the spamming lusers actually start tagging their own subjects. I'm waiting for them to become a bit more common, then it'll be time for a little programming.

    I already have a homebrewed milter program that looks at headers to detect the lameness that's been spewed through hotmail's DAV interface. It will be a small matter to look for the Subject: line and test for the various things that different states have mandated.

    After that, it's easy:

    INSERT INTO quarantines (ip,ctime,reason) VALUES (whatever, NOW(), "Subject contained ADV")

    Once you're quarantined your mail server gets nothing but 4xx errors from me. If I really want mail from a host, then I make an exception. Otherwise they get to queue up mail for me for days and days until it finally gives up.

    Spammers already do plenty of stupid things to self-identify. Things like sending HELO as *my hostname*, or sending mail as someone at my domain, or mailing my many spam traps. This will just be one more way to identify compromised hosts.

  52. Excuse me, I have a question... by lightspawn · · Score: 2, Funny

    As a law-abiding spammer, how am I supposed to send both spam complying with the Louisiana law (including "adv-adult") and the Michigan law (containing "ADV:" as the first four characters?)

    It would seem to me that I have to do something like this:

    Subject: ADV: enlarge your penis [adv-adult]

    I hope no new state laws are introduced, these are making it really tough to stay profitable.

    I wonder if it's still legal to send

    Subject: ADV: adv-adultery webcams!

    The 'adv' still looks nasty, but I can't think of any word that ends in 'adv'.

    1. Re:Excuse me, I have a question... by schon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a law-abiding spammer

      I'm sorry, a what?!?!?! . There really is no such thing.

      how am I supposed to send both spam complying with the Louisiana law (including "adv-adult") and the Michigan law (containing "ADV:" as the first four characters?)

      Simple - you find out in which state the recipient lives, and use the appropriate subject.

      Can't do that? then maybe you shouldn't be spamming.

      I hope no new state laws are introduced, these are making it really tough to stay profitable.

      I think that's the point.

    2. Re:Excuse me, I have a question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a joke, retard

  53. Re:-1 TROLL - very funny (NOT) Re:PARENT IS A TROL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You posted to the wrong post moron! Try reading the f**kin' post before you reply. Or are you the asshole who posted the changed article?

  54. my server, my rules. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

    The law is not restricting your online activities. The law is restricting how you use other people's servers. All it is saying is that if you are using other peoples servers to send advertising for porn, that you must tell them that is what you are doing.

  55. Flaw in your post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "So if I send a saucy email to my girlfriend..."

    You're on Slashdot. Ergo, you DON'T have a GF.

  56. Incompetent Louisiana Officials by mrbrown1602 · · Score: 2, Funny

    As someone who spent a great many years living in Louisiana and following/participating in Louisiana politics, I know for a fact that the officials of the "great state of Louisiana" are quite incompetent. After all, we have the 2nd worst roads in the nation and the 2nd worst education system in the nation (thank god for Mississippi!).

  57. Yep. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2, Funny
    But that is only because you don't have a pre-existing relationship with her.

  58. The internet and the Law by mordac2k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >> leaves you wondering if "officials" have any clue how SPAMMERS operate..."

    Actually it leaves me wondering if you have any idea how the law operates. As silly as this legislation may at first appear, you have to realize that (mostly) nothing is illegal unless there is a LAW to make it so. Yes, spam is already illegal in many states, but creating a law where spammers must insert adv-adult in their subject line is another point where would-be prosecutors can trip spammers up with, thus increasing penalties and even prison time. Its like when a murder is really heinous, prosecutors dont just try someone for murder 1, they get them on just about every count thats feasible to the case.

    1. Re:The internet and the Law by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      he was probably referring to that the spammers are doing already illegal things to send their spam(hacked/trojaned proxys, forged headers) now, and that they probably wouldn't care much of this.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  59. prosecute the companies that purchase the SPAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, they should prosecute the companies that purchase the SPAM. That way there is no way to hide. The SPAM is useless unless someone is giving up their ID.

    Now, the big drawback here is that someone could go after a company that they didn't like by artificially sending SPAM that appears to be an ad for them. But, it wouldn't be hard to make the penalty for that sufficient to deter.

  60. Re:Louisiana gets email? by sharkey · · Score: 1

    Slashdot, Michigan HELLO!!

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  61. Re:How do they plan on enforcing this stupid law(s by bersl2 · · Score: 1

    As far as stuff being forced on LA by the feds, drinking age was 18 until a couple years before I moved down here. Congress threatened to take away Fed highway money unless they changed it to 21. Shoulda come to college a couple of years sooner :-(

    That was supposed to make you actually be 18 to get into bars, as opposed to 15. Too bad it didn't work. If you look even remotely mature, you can get into bars as young as 16. So too bad for you! :-P

  62. /dev/null by segment · · Score: 3, Insightful
    What's to stop someone from say Africa, Taiwan or Korea from sending you advertisements? Absolutely nothing. While the concept is nice in theory, this law seems to be nothing more than someone doing something for possible future elections resume padding.

    So let's say you limit those in the US from sending you spam, what are you going to do when they start relaying from borked out servers abroad... Better yet what can you do. Waste taxpayer money tracking down spammers abroad... Let's see $5000 to track them, another $1000 to bring them down here to face the music, $100,000k miminum for some sort of farce trial for something you could have taken care of with spamassassin.

    Boy oh boy I don't know who is dumber the politician who passed this law or the spammer I hit d on using mutt.

  63. so what are we gonna do? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "leaves you wondering if "officials" have any clue how SPAMMERS operate..." "

    There is no wondering here, we all know they don't have a clue in the world. But whats being done about that? I don't see any huge initiatives to educate our law makers into how these things really work. So what can Slashdot do to educate these people as to how spam really works?

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  64. Organ donors by Door-opening+Fascist · · Score: 1
    # Bar the use of state tax dollars to cover organ transplants for inmates who were sentenced to the death penalty or life in prison and have exhausted their appeals.
    That's really ridiculous. There are few enough organs as there are. If they're there, then why should these go to waste?
    1. Re:Organ donors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Bar the use of state tax dollars to cover organ transplants for inmates who were sentenced to the death penalty or life in prison and have exhausted their appeals.


      That's really ridiculous. There are few enough organs as there are. If they're there, then why should these go to waste?


      Because it gives the state a real incentive to pass the death sentence more often than they really should.
  65. This law worked so well in California... by geekotourist · · Score: 3, Funny
    California has a law requiring the same sort of warning in the subject line. It became the law January 1, 1999.

    In the first months after the law went into effect the percentage of spam attacks with "ADV" or ADV:Adult" in the subject line was a full 5% on average. This compared to the months before it became law, where only 1 out of 20 spam attacks contained these in the subject line.

    This in the state with over 1/10th of the U.S.'s population.

  66. It Might Help Non-LA Residents A Bit... by The+Spie · · Score: 1

    Bubba Catts and Ronnie Scelson, two of the biggest spam kings around (and two of the most public), are Louisiana residents, and they do porn spam. The anti-spam crowd knows their stuff by sight and can easily provide info to the appropriate authorities. If they can get Bubba and Ronnie on spam charges and drain their bank accounts before they wimp out and move to Florida like the rest of them, maybe it would send a message to the spam community that LEOs and legislators are serious.

    Oh, who am I kidding? I spent six months living in Louisiana, enough time to know that they'd screw up a one-person masturbation party.

    --
    If using Linux is about choice, how come people complain when I choose to use Windows?
  67. eh? by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is

    "Great offer at Wal-Mart, 2 for 1 Washing powder"

    more acceptable than

    "Great offer at Sex-Mart, 2 for 1 Vibrators"

    ?

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no kids using email?

    2. Re:eh? by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Why is
      "Great offer at Wal-Mart, 2 for 1 Washing powder"
      more acceptable than
      "Great offer at Sex-Mart, 2 for 1 Vibrators"
      ?


      Taking what I said in full context (although I dont see the insight) I have no problem with Sexmart sending emails under the same circumstances:

      1. You are a current customer that has not opted out.

      2. You are not a customer, but you opted in to THAT company specificially (hense, a genuine optin, not a purchased optin from a list)

      3. You are an ex customer of sexmart, and someone hacked their credit card list, thus a security email even tho you opted out.

      My point (including the corner grocery store) was that virtually any business CAN have legitimate sales email (yes, even sexmarts) but right now what is acceptable and not acceptable is not well defined within the law. This is necessary in order to effectively prosecute people who are spamming illegally, that is defining what is legal and illegal, NOT just what is illegal. This also gains the support of legitimate businesses who use email responsibly. My point did not exclude ANY company selling sexual items in any way, as long as they played the game using the same rules as we would expect Walmart to play by.

      In spite of the nitpicking, I stand by the concept and comment. I guess anyone can read any comment wrong if they try hard enough.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    3. Re:eh? by Arker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, what's acceptable is very clearly defined and has been for decades. The spammers try to pretend otherwise and enlist net-illiterate dupes to spread their obfuscations, and it's really sad.

      It's ok to send commercial email. It's ok to send unsolicitied email. It's ok to send bulk email.

      It's not ok to send email which is both bulk and unsolicited. It's as simple as that. All mass mailing lists must have proper procedures in place to make sure that they include only addresses that have explicitly asked to be included. When that is not done, the list becomes SPAM. It's as simple as that.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    4. Re:eh? by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      It's not ok to send email which is both bulk and unsolicited. It's as simple as that. All mass mailing lists must have proper procedures in place to make sure that they include only addresses that have explicitly asked to be included. When that is not done, the list becomes SPAM. It's as simple as that.

      It is not that simple, there is no federal law with enough teeth that defines it clearly enough. (which is why STATES are creating laws) IMHO, we need stronger legislation that ALLOWS commercial email, that is STRICTER, in order to effectively prosecute illegal commercial mail. As long as there is any "fuzziness" in the law, there is reasonable doubt, and any prosecution will likely fail. Perhaps YOU and I understand what is legal, but it may not be clear enough to a jury, which is pretty much all that matters in a trial.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    5. Re:eh? by Arker · · Score: 1

      What you don't understand is that there is no need for a legal definition of spam, it can be and is defined in terms of contracts and custom already. And the US federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over the internet, neither do the states. It's a worldwide extraterritorial phenomenon.

      Now I would personally have no problem with a simple amendment to the US junk fax law making it clear that it does indeed apply to spam. I would have no problem with such a law in any country. But you and I and anyone who knows much about US politics should realise that this isn't going to happen. When congress gets involved they're going to come up with a thousand pages of exemptions and loopholes and legalese, they'll let their campaign contributors have a license to spam, while using the excuse of shutting down the smaller spammers to intrude and monitor everyone. It's a lose-lose proposition. More spam and less privacy.

      Looking to the statutory law of any country or group of countries to try and stop spam is not only unlikely to work, it's likely to bring even worse problems. Simple civil liability, on the other hand, might just work, if you can get that and avoid the other. But the real key is simply enforcing the private contracts that already govern the internet.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    6. Re:eh? by scrytch · · Score: 1


      Why is

      "Great offer at Wal-Mart, 2 for 1 Washing powder"

      more acceptable than

      "Great offer at Sex-Mart, 2 for 1 Vibrators"

      Heck, in the nice neighborhoods of San Francisco, the bus shelters have ads for Good Vibrations. And they're tasteful. There's the difference between that and spam.

      Incidentally, Wal-Mart doesn't spam me either.

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    7. Re:eh? by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      When congress gets involved they're going to come up with a thousand pages of exemptions and loopholes and legalese, they'll let their campaign contributors have a license to spam, while using the excuse of shutting down the smaller spammers to intrude and monitor everyone. It's a lose-lose proposition. More spam and less privacy.

      Which is why we need legislation that defines what IS acceptable, while everything else is not acceptable. My point. You can't just say bulk commercial mail is illegal, you have to regulate it (ugh) with strict rules that are plain to see.

      Spam is a worldwide problem, and yes, if someone in China sends spam there is not much we can do yet, until THEY make laws, but if someone in America is using Chinese servers to spam people in America, there IS something we can do NOW. Once the email crosses over to a US recipient, we can, for that matter.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  68. Re:adv-adult by Huogo · · Score: 2, Funny

    If this is modded +4, all of slashdot is going to need a adv-adult...

  69. Screw that law, there were better ones in that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Like this one:

    Increase penalties against drivers who refuse to submit to a blood-alcohol test following an accident that kills or seriously injures someone and against extremely drunk drivers, those with a .20 percent blood-alcohol concentration.

    Shit, you mean if I KILL SOMEONE WITH MY CAR in louisiana, I don't even have to take a blood alcohol test currently? I think spam is the least of their problems.

  70. The Courts vs. Legislative branches by Bilbo · · Score: 1
    > Now, if there are bans or restrictions on UCE/spam, they could be applied to me if someone decided they didn't like me.

    Well, this is exactly why the process of making laws is so difficult. It'd be nice if we didn't need any laws, and people would just act nice! The reality is that people don't act nice, and powerful people beat up on or take advantage of less powerful people. In theory, laws are written to protect us from the violent or dishonest. But, it's impossible to write laws that always apply all the time, and can never be misinterpreted.

    So, that's why we have both the Legislative branch (i.e., people writing the laws), and the Courts, who interpret the laws. Complain all you want, but the court system is designed to take imperfect laws and apply them in a case by case basis. Sure, there is no way, by just looking at the legislation, to tell the difference between a scum-of-the-earth spammer and a legitimate free speech case, but we have judges and juries and yes, even lawyers to try to apply some kind on intelligence to the laws and apply them in a just and fair manner.

    Not sure if that makes you feel any better, but at least that's the theory...

    --
    Your Servant, B. Baggins
  71. Amen. by twitter · · Score: 1
    It's not a step in the right direction at all. It's a step toward what the spammers want - a legal backdrop to claim that what they're doing is ok. A step in the right direction would be to stop spamming, not to label their spam so they can then claim it's legal for them to steal.

    Right on. Some people are whining about "free speech" problems of other methods and slippery slopes. Others see a "thinning out" of advertisers and easy filtering in some kind of utopian administration of laws like this. All of it avoids the fundamental fact that no one has the right to abuse a public network with adverts in the first place, and it's positivly perverse to use push in a pull network. Span is simply anti-social and should be banned.

    Louisiana more than likely sees this new law as a new revenue gnerator. They can treaten spammers and in the future sell licenses and rig the system so that's it's imposible to filter the crap out. Trust Tauzin to fix this all wrong.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  72. heh. by twitter · · Score: 1
    I hope no new state laws are introduced, these are making it really tough to stay profitable.

    I hope all 50 states adopt different laws so that your subject must contain 50 different spellings of advertisment in English, Spanish and French. Then I hope the Federal government simply outlaws the practice so that you have to go get a job.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  73. what problem? by twitter · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The problem is getting spammers to honor the law. First of all, I assume (the article did not say) that the law can only affect spammers who are based in Louisiana.

    What? Why not everyone? Speed in LA, get a ticket. Thumb you nose at that ticket, go to jail. I don't see how spammers sending email to LA that breaks this law would be any different than violating a local speed limit. Spam me, get fined. Scofflaw the fine, go to jail. Seems easy enough, even if the vast majority of spammers get away with it, punishing a few will be sweet.

    The implication that spam has a place in the world, if only it anounces itself, is one I don't like. It's kind of like saying, "It's OK to screw people if only you let them know it first."

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:what problem? by ihummel · · Score: 1

      What? Why not everyone? Speed in LA, get a ticket. Thumb you nose at that ticket, go to jail. I don't see how spammers sending email to LA that breaks this law would be any different than violating a local speed limit. Spam me, get fined. Scofflaw the fine, go to jail. Seems easy enough, even if the vast majority of spammers get away with it, punishing a few will be sweet.

      Because the spammer never need enter the state, and therefore would have to be extradited from another state. It would probably not be considered a serious enough crime for that to happen.

  74. SDI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Spam Defense Initiative. And you thought it was an anti-missle missle, or something.

    Well it's obvious this law won't keep spammers in other countries from spamming us. Not even a federal law could accomplish that. I guess it's time to buy some firewalls off of China.

  75. Why don't you use... by theTerribleRobbo · · Score: 0

    ...rot13?

  76. None by Flingles · · Score: 0

    A long time ago I read an article somewhere saying that America may pass a law that says,

    If any illegal internet traffic that passes through American servers, they have a right to charge people from other countries, for doing whatever etc.

    If that law was passed (i dunno) then they could charge any spammer in the whole world. They could abuse this law, but I doubt it. They do abuse some laws...minors can't drink beer :)

    --
    Karma: -2^0.5 . Mainly due to the imbibing of dihydrogen monoxide
  77. Releash the hounds! Re:IANA US resident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/search.lasso?evidenc efile=1070

  78. Doomed. by media_whore · · Score: 1

    This concept is doomed.

    Why should the spammers follow the new law - they are already breaking the law by sending the spam, so why would they abide by this new one?

    As an aside, I recently received a whole set of spam messages with the following footer:

    Please dont send any abuse about us , or You 'll be spammed again and again! LOL!
  79. Why is "SPAM" in caps? by nytmare · · Score: 1

    Why do some people insist on writing the word "spam" and all its derivatives in all capital letters? Those people need a clue; they don't need to shove the fucking word in my face every time I read it. KNOCK IT OFF!

    1. Re:Why is "SPAM" in caps? by momus_radar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because that's how Hormel spells it.

    2. Re:Why is "SPAM" in caps? by Hatta · · Score: 2, Informative

      But spam is not SPAM. Hormel specifically asks that "SPAM" in all caps be reserved for referring to their product. They have been kind enough to not go nuts over trademark dilution, it would be nice if we could all use the colloquial "spam"

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  80. The Harris Poll Spammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Spam has become a $10 billion drag on American business, according to a recent survey by the Harris Poll.

    The Harris Poll people, operating out of harrisinteractive.com and using 0mm.com and messagemedia.com to send their junk is part of that $10 billion drag. They are themselves unrepentant mainsleaze spammers.

    Harris and their polls are pro-spam. Check out the July 17th article here in which Harris is described as attempting to interpret their data as meaning that annoyance with spam is tapering off. Every able techie should add Harris's IP ranges to firewalls and router blocklists until they shrivel up and die.

  81. Two Words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    French Quarter.

    Two more words:

    Mardi Gras.

    Need I say more?

  82. How I blocked ALL spam! [was Re:how i blocked USA by Alien+Perspective · · Score: 1

    I just filtered out all mail with a @ in it!
    Works great! 100% of the spam is blocked.

    Oh, wait

  83. Re:How do they plan on enforcing this stupid law(s by Hatta · · Score: 1
    -allows telemarketers to call you if you "are referred to them by someone you know"

    I'll be looking forward to the next amendment which legalizes severe beatings of said someones.
    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  84. well said! by jzaw · · Score: 1

    too right i want to preserve and promote my right to "freedome to ignore"

    --
    do acts of random kindness and senseless beauty
  85. Mozilla Thunderbird automatically filters spam by rokzy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just started using it and it's worked perfect so far.

    I find it a little scary that small programs like Firebird and Thunderbird are infinitely more usable than MS products while costing infintely less. seems like some kind of conservation law is being violated.

  86. Re:eh? - misread sorry by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    sorry, I managed to miss the opt-in part

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  87. Spamming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have worked with one ISP or another since '96. Naturally, I have had the "illustrious" opportunity to speak with many "end-users". The thing that allows spam to continue, is that num nuts, like most AOL users, keep buying into this crap. I think that a campaign that exposes, illustrates and informs the "newbie" crowd to what spam really is and its fraudulent nature, would make a difference. The spammers would stop all this if they werent making any income. Some of the major spammers use their own T1 and so on. These connections are by no means cheap. If they werent making an income, they wouldnt be able to pay for the lines. If they didnt have the lines, then they would be reduced in their effectiveness. Eventually, once the head was cut off, the rest would wither. Its getting down to the source of the problem. Setting laws are great. And I earnestly wish them the best of luck, but thats only putting a band-aid on the problem. There are still those morons who believe that they can actually get rich from the investments of the Nigerian government, and who can get rich with a pyramid scheme. If they are educated (if not browbeaten), they will stop sending these **insert vulgar adjective here** money to keep their operations going. Just my $.02.

    1. Re:Spamming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The thing that allows spam to continue, is that num nuts, like most AOL users, keep buying into this crap. I think that a campaign that exposes, illustrates and informs the "newbie" crowd to what spam really is and its fraudulent nature, would make a difference.

      I wish I could agree with you, but I can't. The reason is that the education campaign would have to have a success rate that is impossible to achieve. If a spammer reaches one million human recipients over a long weekend of spamming and manages to get ten orders, it's still profitable to the spammer. Imagine the incredible cost and massive coordination that it would take to mount an education campaign that would reduce the current take of 50-100 orders (or whatever it is, depending on "product" being hawked) to 10-20 per million. Even if it were successful, all the spammer has to do to counter the campaign is to send more spam.

      Beating sense into the numbnuts who buy the crap is an effort of diminishing returns. I am totally with you on the desired goal, but it simply won't work. Passing some laws with teeth and using them to put physical barriers such as iron bars and concrete walls between spammers and computers with Internet connections is the only thing that'll actually prevent spammers from spamming.

  88. Correction to my post by EinarH · · Score: 1
    "You can send as much sendmail as you please "

    I guess the correct word is snailmail not "sendmail"...

    --

    Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

  89. For me by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    99% of my spam is american. And I don't live there. There is the occasional british message (about all the spare IT/C++ jobs in london, once a week or so) german message (once a month from Helga) or chinese message (once every three months in gibberish) but the rest is written in USian.

  90. The problem with 'banning' spam or sex products... by bagofbeans · · Score: 1

    ..is:

    1. Your ISP will fine you for using the word 'penis' in an email to a friend without the appropriate header.

    2. Your ISP will fine you for sending a joke to 10 friends (unsolicited? - yes. bulk? - yes.)

    3. The law remains impotent 'cos the spammer is in a different country or can be PROVED to be so.

    Think 1. and 2. are daft? Well, your credit card company and bank fine you for transiently exceeding their limits, even though they want you to do so so they can charge you interest.

    The law is a step in the wrong direction - namely limiting what U.S. citizens can do on the Internet, whilst making no difference to the whole.

  91. Let me be the first to say... by writermike · · Score: 1

    As a geek who understands how spammers operate and grew up in Louisiana, let me be the first to say...

    I'm sorry. I'm so very, very sorry.

    --
    If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
  92. beleive it or don't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but at least a third, and sometimes even half, of my spam already has [spam] in the subject line. Some of these people, at least, think what they are doing is lawful and legitimate.

  93. Huh? by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Yes, I know that. But the law dosn't say anything about 'unsolicited' mail or 'spam'.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  94. The junk fax law by budgenator · · Score: 1
    a simple amendment to the US junk fax law making it clear that it does indeed apply to spam
    is un-needed 47USC sec 227, clearly states;
    (2) The term ''telephone facsimile machine'' means equipment which has the capacity

    (A) to transcribe text or images, or both, from paper into an electronic signal and to transmit that signal over a regular telephone line, or

    (B) to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper.

    The law does not require that the message be send via a tellephone line, meerly that the recieving machine be capable of recieving via a tellephone line.
    (b) Restrictions on Use of Automated Telephone Equipment

    (1) Prohibitions. It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States -
    (C) to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine;

    thus anyone who has sent an ''unsolicited advertisement'' (meaning any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission. to a machine that is capable of being a fax machine, but not necessarily used as a fax machine, is in violation of the federal law and subject to a fine of USD$500.00 or three times that amount if the violation is willfull( that's per incident too).

    see the junk fax law for the law verbatim.
    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    1. Re:The junk fax law by Arker · · Score: 1

      Are you aware of any court tests here?

      I've read the law, and I agree, it certainly seems like it applies to me. However, I've been told that people have repeatedly contacted attorneys to try and use it, and that no attorney yet has believed that the courts would enforce it in a spam case.

      If they would a few class action suits would put an end to all large spam operations very quickly.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    2. Re:The junk fax law by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Case Number: 03-73823sc
      Court: Small Claims Court, 44th Judicial District (Royal Oak, MI.) Phone: (248)246-3600
      Presiding: Magistrate Donald R. Chisholm Trial Date: 2-4-2003
      Update - Feb. 20, 2003 Good News! They didn't appeal, I got my check. for the full story links ect.click
      here.

      Note altho this is a federal law, it was specificaly written so that it is to be tried in the state courts, I.e. the small claims (fuck the lawyers) courts specificaly by private citizens, or in federal district courts when a states att. gen. brings compalaint on behalf of his state's citizens. The fine or standard damages is $500, or 3X $500.00 for willfull violations.

      Now all we need to do is to convince the prossecuters that forged headers are a form of Identity Theft

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    3. Re:The junk fax law by Arker · · Score: 1

      Nice.

      How many geeks do we have in southern florida? Why are the big operations down there still in business?

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  95. Shut the gate mate... by stridebird · · Score: 1
    Fine. Earlier today I caught some asshole trying to run his spam through my mail server

    Hmmm, you make it sound like you caught him in the act stealing apples from your garden. I assume you mean you found evidence in a log file. And I assume you mean a gender-neutral version of 'he' - because you didn't actually 'catch' anybody and so we can't be sure of the gender either.

    The headers also showed him forging email addresses in my own domain name.

    Hmmm. That's the next thing I'd try when the 'FROM:' part of the SMTP protocol doesn't accept a mail from any old name. SOP. I hope that doesn't work either on your mail server. Spam relies on open relays on the 'net and I don't understand why anyone would run an open SMTP relay. Your server should respond only to a restricted set of IP locations only. Nothing else is acceptable. If you are using your SMTP server to handle your outgoing mails rather than the ISP you connect with because you can't be bothered to change SMTP server settings when you connnect with different ISPs, that's not very cool. Find a different solution.

    He doesn't care that his actions will result in me getting bounce messages, angry responses, and possibly even being blacklisted.

    If you are running an open relay on the 'net you deserve to be blacklisted, in fact you should be blacklisted ASAP. If you aren't, you shouldn't be worried. Just stay away from your various server log files if you find they raise your bile so badly.

    Hell, that's his PLAN!

    No it isn't. That would remove the juicy open relay. When you get blacklisted, the relay's gone. That doesn't help the spammer. Also: it isn't _her_ plan either...

  96. Aug 18 Headline by trolman · · Score: 1
    'Spammers Outsourcing Rate Doubles' ...

    This may seem to be a good move actually as there is a new marketing push to use solicitied email by Fortune 500ers but; the fact is that some people like getting mail and some do not. Providing the means to sort it all out in the mail box should be the responsibility of the service provider or originator and not the consumer? I think not. Louisiana is pushing away new buisiness with this frivolous law.

  97. Of *course* we're anarchists! by billstewart · · Score: 1
    There are some extremists out there who believe in some magical entity called "government" that has the "legitimate" right to go beat people up and kill them for not obeying whatever orders those extremists want the "government" to give other people. There are some less extreme people who think it's ok to hire a gang of government guys to do jobs like beating people up as long as they only beat up people who deserve it, like murderers and thieves, but don't beat up people who don't deserve it, like weird musicians or people who smoke the wrong drugs or have the wrong language or skin color, and as long as the government guys doesn't get any bogus ideas about being in charge of anything just because they're good at beating people up. And there _are_ a few anarchists who also like beating up people who they don't like, but they're at least up-front about that being their individual preference, and don't pretend there's something magic about it just because they're nasty, brutish, and short.

    But most of us anarchists _are_ everyday normal decent people, who get along with our neighbors and try to make the world a better place and have a good time. You've just got a really limited view of "normal" is all....

    And the Internet's big enough that "wow, like really cool" gets 864000 Google(tm) hits, so yes, you're probably just not looking at the right web sites or IRC private chat boards or whatever.

    P.S. so does your band have a web site?

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  98. Shouting "Big Sale on Viagra" in Theaters by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Spam isn't like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, which might lead to people running away in panic and getting injured, and even Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who had been responsible for that over-used phrase later said he regretted it, given the amount of suppression of free speech which is done with that as an excuse.

    Spam is much more like shouting "Big Sale On Viagra" in a crowded theater, which is a bit annoying if one person does it once, and makes it not worth going to the theater if too many people do it too often.

    If people aren't civil enough to refrain from doing it on their own, then theaters will either start limiting who can see their movies, or stick to movies where nobody minds not being able to hear and make everybody stand all the time so they don't go yelling "Down in Front" at the spammers all the time and make the tallest people stand in the back unless they want to pay extra for front-row standing-room-only space, which still sucks but maybe they'll still get some business instead of everybody but the spammers leaving.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  99. Re:Of *course* we're anarchists! by orangesquid · · Score: 1

    http://fz.os.us.eu.org/ i didn't want to seem like i was advertising...

    You have a very nifty perspective on anarchy. I like it =)

    --
    --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
  100. Carefully-thought-out law vs. Vigilante justice by billstewart · · Score: 1
    But legislators mostly don't understand this stuff, so unless they get lots of really deep technical and business advice over lots of time they'll write laws that are at best worthless and at worst interfere with lots of legitimate network use and make the rest of it very expensive, and the public mostly doesn't understand this stuff either, and the public doesn't have the attention span to help legislators come up with useful solutions, nor do legislators - so basically they'll do something knee-jerk that seems like a good idea at the time and write press releases that they'll snail-mail to all of their constituents about how they're stopping unwanted non-snail-mail.

    But spam is just bits you don't want. So are the Ping of Death, and 30 million validated copies of the Monty Python Spam Song .mp3, and if somebody thinks it's ok for them to send you bits you don't want, they shouldn't mind if you send them bits _they_ don't want. Unfortunately, retribution while it's happening is _more_ susceptible to forging and spoofing, not less. The classic spammer "Joe Job" is to send out their spam impersonating somebody who's gotten in their way lately, so they get the flames and the spammer only gets the people who really want their Nigerian Viagra.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Carefully-thought-out law vs. Vigilante justice by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      I suspect that you've thought it out a lot more clearly than I.
      But this is /.

      What the legislators do understand is that Vigilante justice usurps their power to make the laws.

      retribution while it's happening
      while You catch the spammer while his hand is in the mailbox.
      after Basing on what was just dropped into the mailbox a split second after the spammer's hand has been withdrawn.

  101. National Boundaries are just Speedbumps by billstewart · · Score: 1
    "National"? We don't need no stinkin' "National". National boundaries are just speedbumps on the Information Superhighway, if that. They're not significantly more useful than state boundaries or city boundaries, because the Internet is worldwide, and nations don't control it.

    National Laws don't keep foreigners from initiating spam - the US doesn't have jurisdiction over all those Nigerian spammers, even though their scams are clearly fraudulent as well as annoyingly frequent.

    National laws don't usually keep nation's subjects from bouncing spam off of hijacked foreign computers, or renting time on foreign hosting center services, so even though all that mail you get from Korean servers is mostly sent by American spammers, laws don't have much effect.

    Becoming non-national is trivially easy, so even if national laws _do_ magically become tougher and longer and harder overnight, all a spammer has to do is spend $100 to open a corporation anywhere in the world, which is just another setup cost along with the $25 for a disposable dialup account. So you're not getting Korean-relay spam from Joe Florida Trailer-Trash,

    • you're getting Korean-Relay spam from the Able Baker Charlie corporation in Nigeria,
    • which hires the Cayman Delta Echo Fulfillment corporation to deliver Fake Viagra for them,
    • and CDEF hires Joe to provide local mailing services for them at an amaing profit margin.
    • Joe's not spamming you - it's those nasty lawless Nigerians. Joe's just a worker-boy filling actual orders.
    • And if your National Laws have enough jurisdictional flexibility somehow manages to charge Severe Penalties to ABC Corp, the most Effective Enforcement can do is rip up their corporate charter papers and try to confiscate the minimal amount of money floating in their Panamanian bank account.
    • We're shocked, SHOCKED to find SPAMMING in NIGERIA!
    • Then a new corporation, Global Oscar Able Tango Seesaw Corp, goes and hires CDEF to fulfill some more Fake Viagra orders.
    and somehow Joe Florida Trailer-Trash keeps getting hired by random foreign companies to ship Fake Viagra to people.

    Joe probably doesn't even need two foreign corporations - he can probably use a single disposable Delaware corporation, though having an extra corporate cutout helps delay things, and going foreign helps delay things, and all of the steps hide the fact that he's really the only real stockholder, and if it's useful, it's easy enough to structure things so that the corporation doesn't really make any money, because it has a lot of expenses like renting a house for its contractor to ship Fake Viagra from.

    The fact that most small spammers aren't bright enough to set up a Delaware corporation, much less a Panamanian corporation, isn't a problem - most small spammers aren't very bright anyway, and the big spammers can run a "legitimate" side business in setting up disposable corporations, as well as selling "bulletproof internet access" and "complete software packages" and lists of "9 billion validated opt-in email addresses".

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  102. Ineffective Laws have Negative Value by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Ineffective laws have no positive value beyond the elected official getting to claim he helped to "Do Something" about Spam in the free snail-mail he sends his voters. Ineffective laws do have Negative Value, though.
    • They don't reduce the amount of spam.
    • They reduce the respect people have for the legal system - it's just stupid.
    • They give the spammers another hook to pretend to be legitimate.
    • They _may_ make spam explicitly legal if the spammers follow the rules carefully.
    • They _may_ interfere with legitimate email, if they're not careful, and legislators have a long history of not being very careful about things they don't understand very well (e.g. you might have to get handwritten paper permission to put somebody on your email list, as opposed to letting people sign themselves up with majordomo.) But spammers will routinely violate the laws.
    • They *often* try to ban anonymity and pseudonyms and other communications tools that are critical to preserving civil liberties. Yes, you can argue that I don't have the right to send you anonymous mail if you don't want it - but I *do* have the right to send anonymous mail to my Congresscritter, or to my friends Alice and Bob, and I occasionally post things as Anonymous Coward here on Slashdot, if I'm saying something that's especially trivial or tasteless or want to make it clear that I'm not posting my company's opinions.

    The only times I've seen anti-spam laws help anything have been by accident - a few years ago there was that failed attempt to pass an anti-spam bill in the US Senate, and spammers got in the habit of footnoting their mail with phrases about "According to Senate Bill S.1618, this email is Not Spam",, which were blatant lies but very unique strings that were easy pickings for a spam filter.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  103. Math by BennyTheBall · · Score: 1
    Istn 1 out of 20 exactly 5%?

    so... what's your point?