Spammers Not Complying With CAN-SPAM

Zelphyr writes "The Register is reporting on a study done by MX Logic found that of 1000 messages tested, only three complied with the recently enacted CAN-SPAM act. Little wonder why the spammers weren't shaking in their boots when this spam friendly anti-spam bill was passed."

Comments

What a fscking shock...

[geminidomino]

A law that says it's OK to spam, has exactly 0 enforcement behind it, and overrides stronger state laws didn't have an effect on the spammers? Who'da thunk it. Welcome to the U.S. of A. We have the best Government money can buy (off).

Re:What a fscking shock...

[haxor.dk]

Don't attribute to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by stupidity.

The US gov't doesn't hold its hand over the spammers - not intentionally anyways. They're just utterly ignorant about the extent of the SPAM problem. Hence the weak legislation that has been passed.

Re:What a fscking shock...

[Tehrasha]

What conspiracy? A conspiracy would imply that something was done behind closed doors, covertly away from the public eye. The DMA (Direct Marketing Association), remember those guys, the ones who opposed the junk-fax ban and Do-Not-Call list? They supported the senators who wrote the freaking bill!! There was no conspiracy. Fox/Henhouse.

Anyone surprised?

[Kjella]

I mean, really. They've shown so much respect for other laws (deceptive marketing, viruses, DDoS, fraud, hacking relays, illegal use of resources like open relays) so why should this be any different?

Kjella

Why even bother?

[tuxette]

What's the point of having this anti-spam law in the US anyways? The real point I mean. Is it an attempt to make American citizens or the people of the world think that the US is tough on spam or something? I mean all that stuff about real address and markers for porn are nice and all, but without the rule of opt-in, you may as well not bother having an anti-spam law at all.

An anti-spam law ought to ensure that people do not receive spam. Period. It doesn't matter if the addresses are real or not. It does not matter if they are marked for pornographic content or not. They should not be receiving that kind of e-mail in the first place, and it should not be a burden upon the people to ensure non-receipt of spam. And if for some reason someone or other wants this kind of e-mail, they should explicitly consent to itsreceipt.

Re:Why even bother?

[pjrc]

An anti-spam law ought to ensure that people do not receive spam. Period.

No. Not period. Saddly, life just isn't that simple. In fact, there isn't even a precise, widely accepted definition of exactly what is and is not "spam".

The precise definition problem is not with obvious ads for viagra, get rich quick scams, debt consolidation and mortgages, porn, and so on. It's with the fringe cases. Defining "spam" precisely enough that a ban could be meaningful is a giant problem. It's a problem most of the anti-spam community has recognized for quite some time.

It's easy to be an armchair politician and declare "all spam should be illegal, period".... but what exactly is you definition of spam that will be banned? Something more precise that "I know it when I see it"?

Anyone who administers mail lists, for example, will be able to tell you that even benign non-commercial lists regularily get complaints about being "spam". Many would call those end users "clueless", in that they signed up for announcement or to participate in the list (often with a double-confirm process), but later forget they had ever expressed an interest and accuse the mail list operator of spamming them.

It does not matter if they are marked for pornographic content or not.

Yes, it does. At least that's what the research has said. Perhaps you missed the article months ago, where researches surveyed how spam impacts real people, and found that the overwhelmingly strongest frustration with spam is the inability to filter porn spam.

It doesn't matter if the addresses are real or not.

Yes, it does matter.

It's also a lot easier to define and verify whether message header and envelope information (used by SMTP) are a legitimate, good-faith representation of who transmitted the message, than it is to define whether the content of the message is "spam".

.

However, your message does make the very good point than an opt-in standard is the only real, long term solution. Saddly, it looks like there is not enough political support for a true opt-in standard in US law (like we currently have for faxes).

Maybe the failure of this CAN-SPAM law will prompt opt-in? But I would expect first a modification that adds some real enforcement and penalties for forged headers/envelope and mis-labeled porn.... which are both easy to prove and will provide at least some relief.

And now what?

[tacocat]

Now that we've pretty much proven the the current Congress is entirely incapable of doing squat for it's voting constituents (and worlds for their Special Interest, PACs, and Business/Corporate campaign contributors) I am wondering what will really happen next.

This is pretty clear evidence that Congress doesn't really do a great job in protecting the interests of the voting public.

It seems to me that these people have forgotten that while we live in an Economic system called a Capitalist system, we live in a Political system called a Democracy. They are not the same system and not the same functionally.

Business has done an excellent job at protecting themselves at every turn under the banners of "Don't hurt the already ill economy" or "Free Trade, Capitalism forever" without any voices standing up for the basic rights of the voting public.

I would have expected that the issues surrounding the Internet would have become more political by now, but I believe I assumed that more people would care about these things. Recently I have been approached by a number of people who honestly thought that the CAN-SPAM law was going to solve all their problems. They thought I was full of BS when I told them CAN-SPAM actually legalized spam. But then they never read it and I did.

The reality is this: Congress will never really do anything to protect the private citizen unless there is some Corporation behind the initiative to either make money, or block their competition. I haven't really seen anything of late that would contradict this. Have you?

Re:Obvious flaw

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's an accurate description of the law. It means you CAN SPAM.

Silly Fools....

[Gorillaka]

Analogy: Certain groups are upset with the amount of rugby being played over in Austailia. So they lobby congress and have a bill passed against it. But wait! They're still playing rugby in Austrailia.. what happened, we passed laws against it!?

Most of the spam does NOT come from the US. It's retarded to assume that these spammers all over the world are expected to change their core business model because the US passes some law.

"But wait, I know that a lot of the ringleaders behind all this MUST be in the US". Sure.. but the reason they can hide themselves so well is because they're breaking a dozen other more serious laws in the process of sending out their crap. CANSPAM is seriously the least of their worries.

The spam situation in the world right now is one of those things we'll tell our grandchildren about some day.. as someone growing up under globalization will laugh at the 'crazy' notion that two individuals on the same internet weren't governed by the exact same set of laws.

So anyway, until full globalization is upon us (hey.. I guess the one perk is that it'll cut down on spam), your best bet is to upgrade your filters and use Shadango.com. In case any of you haven't heard yet, Shadango allows you to check all of your accounts from one interface (imap, pop, aol, y!, hotmail, etc), PLUS if filters ALL of them for you in real time. I seriously did not believe it worked until I tried it.. I've actually had the first spam-free week since the mid 90s. Check it out.. it works.

That's my two cents

Kevin