Slashdot Mirror
Tweaking the CAN-SPAM Act
rbochan writes "The Register is reporting that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is consulting on proposed changes to the CAN-SPAM Act. Changes would include clarifying the definitions of the terms person and sender, and altering the time allowed for a sender to to honor an opt-out request. The FTC proposal is available as a PDF on the official FTC site." From the article: "Critics have accused the Act of being narrow and weak, accusations that may be hard to deny given that the US sends more spam than any other, according to a recent report by anti-virus firm Sophos."
Existing laws should be applicable. Lets see spam at a minimum usually involves
* forgery with the intention to deceive.
* theft of service
* trespassing
Reshape the existing laws to include new technologies.
While we are at it, go after the end benificiary of spam. The ones selling a product or service. I know some will say that it is too easy to set someone up. Is it? In the U.S. one is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Hmm... we should be able to spot a setup.
Heck why laws at all? Most times the parties involved cross multiple boundries/jurisdictions. Laws, in the long run, are not the way to go. The technology needs fixing
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
Well the problem is wording it correctly. Just like setting up Spam filters.
I work for a small buisness. I don't Spam. But I do advertise via email. How is this not evil? Well I know that a customer is having problem with X and my previous solution was to expensive for them to fix. A week later I found a cheaper solution that stills works. So I email the customer saying Hey I found a better solution to the problem and it only costs $y
Now if the CAN-SPAM act was to strick this honest buisness dealing could be considered Spam which it is not.
Ok you say that is fine because it is one on one comunication. So let me move it 1 step further. Say I know 5 clients that have the probem and I send them the email.
following this pattern there will be a point where I move from normal sales to spamming. That is why we have a hard time making laws on excessive things because they will could become to a point where they hinder good intentional uses.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
If the spam is required to be labeled with a subject line starting with ADV: it makes it very easy to filter and easy for a judge and jury to determine that it does break the law when they don't include it. Under the California law, if you leave out required labeling, it is deceptive allowing individuals to sue for $1000 for each one.
Fight Spammers!
Stats for May 15-May16 for inbound mail attempts to one small domain - somewhere on the Internet
Mail rejected because account didn't exist (BRT)
server1: 1,411,109 (May15 16:24 - May 16 18:05)
server2: 1,423,574 (May15 20:32 - May16 18:09)
server3: 1,309,968 (May15 10:14 - May16 18:13
Mail rejected by RBL
server1: 235,397 (May15 16:24 - May 16 18:05)
server2: 287,573(May15 20:32 - May16 18:09)
server3: 279,709(May15 10:14 - May16 18:13)
Mail actually delivered to mail spool
(i.e. before spam assassin checking):
server1: 112,634 (May15 00:06 - May16 17:58)
server2: 146,300 (May15 08:47 - May16 18:08)
server3: 57,055 (May15 11:31 - May16 18:13)
Totals and percentage of total mail processed over ~24 hours:
Mail Delivered: 315,989 6%
Mail Rejected RBL: 802,679 15%
Mail Rejected BRT: 4,144,651 79%
Judging by my own e-mail, and the amount of spam that gets through for spamscope to dispatch less than 6% of all e-mail being sent is legitimate.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Mediator: Do you have proof that DaGoodBoy agreed to be solicited?
Spammer: Yes! I have a receipt from Joe Blow's Low-Cost Opt-In Lists.
Mediator: And everyone on this list opts-in for e-mail advertising, even quack pills?
Spamer: That what Joe told me.
Mediator: Case dismissed.
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!