Slashdot Mirror
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.
The lack of the private remedy is bad (there's nothing more intimidating than looking down the barrel of a loaded lawyer), but at least the law requires the spam to be labeled. That will make it a lot easier to filter out - - provided, of course, that those anonymous sellers of penis lengtheners obey the law. If you can't trust someone like that to be a law-abiding citizen, who can you trust?
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
With the new bill, we have to rely on and trust the 'opt-out' option, something we've been trained NOT to do.
...into thinking this would stop spam anyway?
Nothing can stop spam outside of God.
Blogzine.net
clifgriffin > blog
..just like the anti-virus industry. The laws have glaring loopholes through them but were worded well enough to calm down the masses. Now the anti-spam software industry will grow like mad as spam continues to flood inboxes. It's no coincidence that Microsoft was consulted on the spam laws, they have a vested interest in the after market antispam business.
Trolling is a art,
Our government will shortly be saying that they can not regulate Spam unless they can watch all things moving across the wire. This includes the Net and Voice. The US government is slowly setting up the reason for why they have to monitor everything in our lives.
I hate spammers, but this law is meaningless, as are ALL anti-spam laws:
1. Spammers will ignore the law. Which leads to the next point:
2. Laws are meaningless unless enforced. How will it be enforced? When I get hit with spam that violates this law, who do I complain to? Who will investigate my complaint and then pursue and punish the spammers?
3. Where will all the money and resources come from to enforce this law (see point #2 above) -- to actually enforce this law will take FAR more money and resources than anyone realizes or will admit.
And even if significant money and resources are allocated to enforce the law:
4. What about all the spam originating from servers outside the U.S.
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!
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
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?
It's not going to stop SPAM just make it honest. They have to provide a real address, label it as commercial, and provide an opt-out that really works. How does this keep me from getting SPAM? I don't give a rats ass about opt outs or addresses I don't want this crap in my in-box to begin with. I'm not even going to mention the bastards overseas who are under no obligation to follow these rules( like they would if they had to anyway).
Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
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).
Why do I vote again? Oh yeah, I stopped voting since I realized it doesn't matter who wins
If you don't vote, then guess what? You don't get the right to bitch and moan when things don't go the way you want them to, plain and simple. It's fucked up, this political system we have, but at this point in time our only voice is by voting. I know you feel rebellious to say it, but understand that this is a very real case where if you aren't trying to be a part of the solution, you are, by default, a big part of the problem.
Post you politician's e-mail addresses everywhere you can
Politicians doubtfully are the first to read their email. More than likely you'd be targeting an intern, whose job is to wade through the inbox to pick out the handful of real emails. I don't think your point will get across to them, do you?
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
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.
Alright, I always thought Schumer was stupid weak minded liberal who thinks government can solve all of life's woes, but this proves it:
"It's not going to solve all the problems, but it's the first real step," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "The public is demanding something. It's going to happen. We're going to get it done."
Okay, spam is not a government problem, it is a technical problem and no amount of praying or laws (Smart or dumb) are going to solve the problems of spam. Now here is the list why:
1) Most spam that ends up in U.S. mailboxes comes from overseas, so no US law is going to stop that.
2) Spam actually works on an economic level, if it did not, then no one would spam. Spammers spam, because spam works. Destroy the profitiblity of spamming and spam will go away.
3) Spamming is easy. Make it so addresses can not be spoofed, email headers can't be forged and MX records have to match up with A records (All those modem pool modems would not be able to send because no will accept mail from a machine that does not have an correct MX record). I think if you fixed this, then a lot of the spam would just go away.
Linux O Muerte!
Did you even bother to read the article? Yes, it has to be labeled as spam, but the label isn't defined. As a matter of fact, the label is up to the spammer to decide! The FTC is PROHIBITED by this law from defining the label. So how are you supposed to filter out mail based on an arbitrary label defined by the sender?
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
From the text of the bill, the mail must provide
But what does that mean? Putting "[AD]" in the subject title? Adding a "is-spam: true" header? Ending the message with "BTW, this is spam"? Some of them? All of them? Any could be could be considered a valid indentification but the vast variety of methods and phrasings could make it very difficult to actually filter out based on these "clear" identifications.
About, oh, 80-100 characters to the right of the Subject line is a very clear label - "afdgkbj gfda hnrabs sf bgfb sfgfda nhmflwje" :-)
No. It's even narrower than that. It only applies to the specific line of business of the specific company being advertised. So one spammer can send you a Viagra spam, a mortgage-refinancing spam, an inkjet cartridge spam, a long distance spam, a cigarettes-by-mail spam, an extend-your-warranty spam, an online greeting card spam, a dating service spam, a credit card spam, a debt-consolidation spam, and a wireless video camera spam. You then have to opt out of each one separately.