Australia To Fast-Track Anti-Spam Bill

Crypto Gnome writes "News Interactive is reporting that anti-spam legislation is being fast-forwarded by the Australian Federal Government. The proposed law will ban sending commercial emails without the recipient's prior consent and ban the use of email harvesting or list-generating software. Naturally, this will only directly impact local Australian spammers, but they're also hoping this will set a precedent for the International community." Banning list-generation software seems a bit heavy-handed, doesn't it?

Comments

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It's only spam

[evil_roy]

"Banning list-generation software seems a bit heavy-handed, doesn't it?"

Of course it does, but all rational thought seems to disappear when the issue is spam.I hate it, you hate it, we all hate it. But it is clear that many people who are quite tolerant of copyright abuses, IP theft, piracy , porn as free speech etc etc etc become quite intolerant when the topic at hand is spam. The rights that are held so precious are there to be trampled over for convenience sake.

The way to fight spam is to build clever tools, come up with a technical fix. New laws are the last thing we need. I have seen Aussie net laws lambasted all over the web, but as soon as one of these stupid laws is aimed at spam a lot of people seem to think it is a good idea. It is not. When similar laws were proposed to ban porn and bomb making sites many were outraged. The same sentiments should apply.

Re:It's only spam

[Zachary Kessin]

Part of the reason spam is different from most free speech issues is that spam imposes a cost on people other than the speaker. If you want to promote whatever your cause is you can go buy ads in the paper or whatever and its fine as you are paying the bills.

But if you spam me you (not you peronally) take up my resources that are not yours to dispose of. If my ISP has to buy a bigger mail server to deal with the spam that is real money they have to spend on your spam. If you want to put porn up on your website as long as you pay for the bandwidth etc I don't see a problem as such.

Re:It's only spam

[scottme]

In western societies, we pride ourselves on being democracies, and in democracies, the will of the people is supposed to prevail, though of course the rights of minorities need to be respected.

For me, the key point about spam is that no-one wants to receive it.

Sure there are plenty of misguided individuals who are financially motivated to think it's in their personal interest for other people to have to be on the receiving end of it, and will therefore cynically maintain that they are in favour of it. But I have never met anyone who could honestly say they would willing endure being sold to via cold-call, unsolicited sales pitches for products they mostly have less than zero interest in. And I've had that discussion with plenty of people.

That universal distaste for it is what makes spam so reprehensible, and that is why I am totally in favour of all legal and technical measures to curtail it to the maximum extent. It wastes more and more of everyone's time and money (it's wasting my time right now, writing this!), and the sooner we are rid of it, the better.

Re:It's only spam

[pixelpusher220]

If nobody wanted to receive it, then nobody would buy anything sold via email, and spammers would go out of business.

Spammers do go out of business all the time. The people actually making money are the ones selling the lists and mass sending services. The people who actually 'sell' via the channels are the ones going out of business.

Reference the California Gold Rush days...the only ones who got rich were the people selling shovels.

The moral here is that as long as people 'think' they can make money via spam, someone else will sell them the ability to send it. Kinda like the script kiddies...no real skill, just following the instructions.

The real problem is the conveyor of the message...which makes shooting the messenger in this case quite reasonable ;-)

Heavy Handed ?

[SirFlakey]

I agree - When viewed on the angle of banning software in itself - That sort of thing sets those tiny little alarm bells ringing in the back of the cavernous space dubbed, somewhat grandiously, "my brain".

But for the life of me I cannot see anything positive "email harvesting or list-generating software" could be used for. But maybe that is just me.

List Generation Software has no valid use

[Jailbrekr]

So tell me, if banning List Generation Software is a bit heavy handed, then please explain its lawful use?

Oh? Do I hear silence? Of course I do. there is NO legitimate reason for list generation software, or email harvesters. If you develop a drug where its only use is to incapacitate a person, you ban its possession and manufacture. The same goes for list generation software.

Make up your MINDS, people!

[mcrbids]

Banning list-generation software seems a bit heavy-handed, doesn't it?

Which is it going to be?!?

On one hand, we decry any attempt to regulate the Internet for any reason (see this article just earlier today!) unless it's XYZ...

This is why true democracy always fails... Everybody will vote only for themselves, but the end result is that everybody votes *against* everybody else.

So we have slowly eroding personal liberties, along with a gradually growing, now almost all-encompassing quasi-socialistic govornment. (here in the US)

Sometimes altruism pays. Is it so terrible to BAN email harvesters and their accompanying list generators? How about google? They've certainly made notes on some of my recent activity...

Most any slashdotter will agree that a line needs to be drawn, even if it's just ABM. (Anything But Microsoft)

It takes a level head to realize the idea of valid compromise towards drawing lines that will function well in society.

valid uses

[CoffeeCrusader]

Yeah, it might be that there's no valid use for list-generating software, but the problem's the spam, not the software. Anybody who knows a bit about programming can write a new list-generating software. Thus you can't ban the software, as you can be sure that there'll be a site who offers the same banned software for download. The only way is to punish them for actually using it, not for having it. 'cause software ought to be free and not regulated away because someone could misuse it. just like a kitchen knife could be used for cutting bread as well as for killing someone

"List generating" - wait for the bill

[lpontiac]

Let's keep in mind there is probably an entire section in draft legislation, which was reduced to a few sentences in a press release, which the media reduced to the phrase "list generation software."

We won't know what this actually means until the bill appears before parliament.

One concern is that a sufficiently vague definition could cause legal concerns with software that has legitimate uses - for instance, something like SELECT DISTINCT sender_address FROM usenet_posts; on a database like Google Groups could generate a list of email addresses, how should things be phrased to make sure Google Groups is in the clear?

Re:Heavy Handed?

[inaeldi]

What else, apart from sending spam or selling the list to someone else who'll send spam, would such a list be used for?

Funny how slashdotters then go to say that P2P software shouldn't be banned because it has legitimate uses, when we all know that almost everyone uses it to pirate music.

Not flamebaiting, just being cynical.

Re:Heavy Handed?

[ColaMan]

That's not spam, because we're contacting genuine potential customers.

You do realise that spam is termed 'U.C.E.' as in Unsolicited commercial email?

The phrase "but I'm just contacting genuine potential customers" is the mainstay of every spammers excuse list.

I do applaud your sales guy for snail-mailing things out - it's likely to have more credibility anyway compared to having your message slotted in between v1argara and peni5 enlargement offers.

1c e-mail postage stamp

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way spamming will significantly reduce, is when each e-mail has to be paid for. Say 1c postage for sending an e-mail. I would have no problem paying the $10 for the 1000 e-mails I send a year. A spammer would need to pay this amount every millisecond of sending spam.

How to implement this world-wide is another question.

list generating software

[u05]

I can think of many good and essential uses for list generating software

-scientific data result generation.

-list of open ports on a computer for security analysis.

-list of most popular products from your on-line store front for re-ordering and evaluation.

-compiler/assembler output is a list of errors in your code hence a compiler is list-generating software.

-list of journey routes and times generated through point and click maps.

-security auditing software recording logon times and users.

-lists generated by search engines. be it online or by database search.

The law bans all of this legitimate and essential software and i think i could go on all day thinking of situations this software is needed.

Hitting spammers where it hurts

[Frodrick]

The proposed law will ban sending commercial emails without the recipient's prior consent

Perhaps the law could also prohibit businesses paying someone to send unsolicited email - and hold them accountable for the behaviour of the person they hire to send their (solicited) commercial emails.

It seems to me that this would have two effects: 1) It would make unsolicited email unprofitable, and 2) It would force businesses to keep their emailers on a short leash.

I suppose there must be something wrong with that idea or it would have been suggested long ago...

Patching the law

[t_allardyce]

Im sure viruses, hacking, even port scanning are banned in most countries and/or ISP policies. That doesnt mean people don't get hacked or get the virus! Anyone who cares enough will use protection - firewalls, anti-virus, properly set-up systems. Banning spam or any of the software thats used to create it means nothing. People will still get spam, maybe not as much but they will still get it and they will still need filters. It just ads another layer of legislation to the internet which is essentially just a hack, so you have to balance it out - if people are still going to get spam and always will even if the whole world bans it, then they might as well just use filters, is it worth reducing it abit by adding more laws?

Governments are acting like Microsoft, their laws are full of massive holes so every month they issue more hot-fixes, thats not the way to do it.

Re:Heavy handed is about the norm...

[daffmeister]

It's a bit like walking down a busy road in London, and expecting people not to offer you leaflets.

As usual, the analogy is poor. If the leaflet-givers were offering you penis enlargement and viagra, along with legitimate messages from friends and business associates, and you had to take the leaflets before you could determine which it was, and they charged you a penny for each one, and they gave a couple of hard-core ones to your nine year old daughter, then I think the analogy would be more accurate.

SPAM - We're missing the mark.

[mbottrell]

I do believe the way we tackle SPAM and Email in general is outdated.

SMTP based on RFC821 relies soley on the principle of:

1. User sends mail to target sender.
2. Mail goes to their SMTP server
3. Mail 'finally' arrives at the recievers SMTP server.

The problem with this is that there is no verifcation from the end-user that the mail is legit.

A much better solution would be based on user verification.

This in theory would work on the principle that the we are creatures of habit.

We all recieve legit Email from a small trusted group. Anything not based on the trusted group is potentially unwanted mail.

A verified Email transport would work like such:

1. Reciever builds a list of trusted Email senders.
2. The trusted list is uploaded to the recievers SMTP server.
3. A mail sender sends an email.
4. The senders SMTP server sends a message envelope to the recievers SMTP server. (contains just the senders smtp address).
5. The message is stored on the Senders SMTP server awaiting verification from the remote end.
6. The Recieving SMTP server checks the envelope against the user 'whitelist'.
7. If the sender is on the recievers whitelist - the RECIEVERS SMTP server confirms that this is legit.
8. Senders SMTP message delivers the message to the Remote SMTP server.
9. If the Email is NOT on the whitelist, the SMTP server sends a WAIT for further instructions message to the Sending SMTP server.
10. The user then can review the 'envelopes' and decide whether to recieve/remove the offending email.
11. If removed - the Recievers SMTP server sends a message back to the remote Senders SMTP server to say not to send.
12. If a response is never recieved by the Sending SMTP - the message is deleted after 30 days.

This has some added benefits:

• Legit mail recieves a higher priority. :)
• SPAM is not Blindly Sent but is only initiated at the 'Recievers request'.
• Network Traffic is cut considerably.
• The cost of storage of the SPAM is held at the remote end (SPAMMERS ISP).
• The Spammers ISP could legitimately then charge the SPAMMER for 'unsent' Mail storage. :)

This is only a thought -- and would need to round out the idea - however it seems feasable that this is possible.

Interested in others comments.

Most Spam filtering software already includes 'WhiteLists/BlackLists'.
Moving this into the SMTP transport at the server end seems the next logical and automated approach.

MB.