Spammers Pleased with 'Anti'-Spam Act

grung0r writes "A post at Ed Foster's Gripelog explains why the new anti-spam law that Congress is passing isn't a good idea: 'it's clear that only the Direct Marketing Association, Microsoft, AOL and a handful of others had any input into the law, because it's carefully crafted to allow the big marketers free reign. And the loopholes it provides them will be more than big enough to provide aid and comfort for the smallest and sleaziest of spammers as well.' More about the problems with the law can be found at cauce.org." The direct marketers are dancing in the streets over it.

Comments

Welcome to reality, Mr. Morrissey

[RobertB-DC]

So Brian Morrissey, the Senior Editor of the DMNews, thinks spam isn't all that bad. That consumers shouldn't be able to sue to take back their inboxes.

I guess we can't say he's not putting his money where his mouth is, though... he put his email in a clickable link right there on the DMNews.com site.

Of course, some spammers may exclude dmnews.com from their spidering. That does Mr. Morrissey a huge disservice! Clearly, unsolicited email is something he strongly supports, and we should help him in any way we can.

So if anyone would like to include bmorrissey@dmnews.com on their email list, I'm sure Brian Morrissey would not mind at all! After all, Mr. Brian Morrissey (whose email address is bmorrissey@dmnews.com) is Senior Editor of "The Online Newspaper of Record for Direct Marketers." He probably knows the Webmaster and the Postmaster, too, and I'm sure they would never consider UCE to be Abuse.

This has been a public service of the Slashdot community. Don't worry, you can thank us later!

Opt- out works for regular mail

[acomj]

The DMA (Direct Marketing Association) web page has an opt out of junk mail page hidden in there somewhere, where for 5$ via internet or free via mail you can opt out of junk mail. I did it and it works remarkable well. It takes time to start up , but all members of the DMA are required to not send to addresses on the opt out list.

I was pleasantly surprised.

Of course one has to wonder how many spams are from legit businesses that are members of DMA?

spam revenue structure

[slavitos]

I don't rememeber the source (I think it was UK research), but I read a report somewhere that said that the biggest "source" of income for spammers is not even the money they receive from 0.001% who do respond to their messages, but what they make when they re-sell the list (less bouncebacks, of course).

It looks like some bizarre vicious circle: the spammer doesn't even care if you are going to respond to the "opt-out" clause in their mailings simply because by the time the opt-out reaches them, they wil already have sold your address to 5 other spammers and made their money on you.

Am I wrong or the bill simply doesn't address the list reselling practice? (Granted, I haven't read the actual legislation - just the press coverage).

Pro-spam

[Rank Amateur]

There. You have it. The anti-spam bill is a pro-spam bill.
I still wonder how the government will justify the fact that spammers use, without paying a red cent, the facilities of others to do their dirty deeds.
This is in direct contrast to other direct marketers. Junk mail? Every letter requires a 37 cent postage stamp. Junk faxes and phone calls? These require payment by the sender of flat phone rates and calling charges.
Spam, however, is virtually free for the sender, piggybacking on other people's equipment. It's the first form of direct marketing *in history* in which the unhappy recipient pays (through increased ISP costs) for the priviledge of receiving messages.
The US government, in effect, has declared that all online citizens will be forced endure, and to pay for, receipt of unsolicited spam -- and, what's more, have no recourse, as private individuals, in the courts. A sad day overall.