Slashdot Mirror
FTC Declares Can-Spam a Success
TheSixth1 writes "ZDNet is reporting that the FTC announced in a recent report to Congress [PDF Warning] that the Can-Spam act is 'effective in providing protection for consumers.' The report boasts that the substantive provisions of the Act have mandated adoption of a number of commercial email "best practices" that many legitimate online marketers are now following. Second, the Act has provided law enforcement agencies and ISPs with an additional tool to use when bringing suit against spammers. The more than 50 cases brought to date by the FTC, the Department of Justice, state Attorneys General, and ISPs demonstrate CAN-SPAM's enforcement efficacy."
...but the county producing the most SPAM is still the US.
__
Adult Funny Videos
Or who have no choice with regards to ISPs because there is only one active in their area?
So they live with dial-up. If the only provider of cable television in my area is NAMBLA, then I'll live with the seven local broadcast channels rather than give NAMBLA my money.
Stupid argument, not agreeing to using 'collatoral damage' to force things onto an ISP is not the same as not wanting those ISPs to remove spammers.
That's not what the OP said. He said "bullying ISPs into shutting down spammers after the event" as if the fact that it was done after the spam was sent was somehow the important point.
As long as you and other SPEWS proponents cannot see that difference, you will by most be seen as bullies and as doing more damage then good.
I don't care how I'm seen as long as I'm helping reduce spam. And I've seen no compelling argument to make me believe that SPEWs is ineffective. Quite the contrary. I've seen more and more instances of ISPs refusing to write pink contracts after being listed on SPEWS.
Hmm, you do not see the similarity to the reasoning of those who justify killing innocent bystanders in order to put pressure on the USA to change its policies?
I hardly think that someone bouncing your e-mail is akin to killing people. Now you're just being silly.
You're also missing something important: It's not illegal for me to refuse your e-mail at my server. I can refuse it because your IP address is on SPEWS, because I don't like your ISP, because your sysadmin "dissed" me in a newsgroup, because your IP address has a prime number in it, or because you tried to send the mail during the witching hour. You don't have a legal right to deliver your e-mail to my server.
On the other hand, SPEWS contributers do have a Constitutionally guaranteed right (free speech and freedom of the press) to publish a list of address blocks which they believe are spam sources. There is nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical about doing that.
Again, if you've got a better plan than SPEWS, what is it?
The main farm I work in sees - on average - about 150,000 per hour. I filter using an extensive local block list. For instance aside from minor white listings no RIPE, KRNIC, APNIC, LATNIC ip space can email my users. Much of APNIC is in the firewall, so they can't even browse our sites. After that, I use sevearal global block lists.
At peak, I guetimate over a million spams/viruses/trojans per hour. Normally just before a new worm is announced I'll see someone has turned on the sewer pipe full blast. Desired email runs about 60,000 to 80,000 per day.
If the FTC wants to say CAN-SPAM works, I'd say I have a lot of offers for amazing pills they should see.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.