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

Spammers are people too

[cmwck]

It's nice to see that the kind folks at the DMA are finally standing up for the spammer's right to send America billions of email ads for stuff it doesn't need and won't buy.

This "opt-out" rule is completely backwards. This implies the general public wants to be bombarded with crap by default, unless otherwise specified. And the only way you can "otherwise specify" is by going through hundreds of opt-out procedures for each specific spammer. We might as well just highlight them all and hit delete like we've allways done.

Other countries seem to be on the right track, though. In the UK, you have to opt in if companies want to send you spam (unless you're allready their customer), and in Italy the maximum penalty for spamming is 3 years in prison as well as big fines.

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that if we were to have some law completely barring unsolicited spam that groups like the DMA would have a Free Speech fit and call it unconstitutional?