Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC Declares Can-Spam a Success

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the official-report-went-to-my-junk-folder dept.

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."

9 of 310 comments (clear)

  1. A success? by speedplane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Errr... Last time I checked I was still getting about 50 spam messages a day.

    --
    Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    1. Re:A success? by macdaddy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      So what you're telling me is that that you've elected to block all the registries that do the least amount of good? The vast majority of spam comes from within the US (ARIN) and is directed to English-speaking American consumers. As an avid (sometimes rabid) anti-spammer myself I'd rather implement an effective filtering solution than waste my time blacklisting those that spam the least, according to every single spam source study done in the last 8 years or so. BTW, you forgot AfriNIC (41/8).

      I also agree. The CAN-SPAM Act is a joke. 50 court cases? Ha! We could have had 50,000 cases in the courts in the 2 years since the CAN-SPAM Act stripped away the individual's right to seek private action. A success my ass.

  2. If only they had listened to Slashdot by melonman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... we'd still be relying on SPEWS to bully innocent bystanders into bullying ISPs into shutting down spammers after the event.

    --
    Virtually serving coffee
    1. Re:If only they had listened to Slashdot by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because sysadmins implementing blocklists need to be aware of what SPEWS is, and why they shouldn't use it.

      As an ISP or email host, you could easily get sued for using SPEWS, such a negligent disregard for false positives would likely cause you to lose the case.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:If only they had listened to Slashdot by kindbud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A vigilante is someone who takes, or advocates taking, law enforcement into their own hands.

      Hey, guess what - there are laws against spamming.

      But my main point is that punitive DNS blacklists like SPEWS are ineffective. The people that need to communicate with the blacklisted ISP customer will simply whitelist that customer, even if they use SPEWS. Try telling a customer or client that you won't service their account because SPEWS says their ISP hosts spammers, and so you won't be receiving their emails. See if you keep your customer very long. In the end, what's more important to my company is the business we do with our customers, not who our customers get their email service from.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
  3. Thankfully... by omeg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My e-mail address has a spam filter on the server, which detects pretty much 98% of all garbage that comes in and labels it [SPAM], which is then sent to my junk mail folder upon download. You can pass a million acts and laws, but it's really things like this that are actually effective.

  4. This is ridiculous by mitchulskus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is so futile on so many different levels I can't stand it.

    Of course the government is going to congratulate themselves on a job well done when they haven't done anything.

    Cripes they just did this with the "Do Not Call" registry as well.

    What cooks my noodle the most, however, is:

    1. Slashdot thinks it's news. I feel like I'm getting poked with a stick here.
    2. There isn't anything we could do about it even is we wanted to.
    and 3. If it's so trivial and "ridiculous" why did I just take the time and effort to respond to this nonsense.

    Mitchulskus

  5. Re:Spam damage by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And you assumed Jotii was male, because this is Slashdot. Oh, wait...

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
  6. Re:It's a start... by soliptic · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Damn right. Nearly all the spam I get is from the US. Weird, then, that slashdot is full of American's sneerily proposing the complete blacklist of China.

    Now, you might say "oh but that spam is sent via Chinese zombies" - I don't care - that's irrelevant. What it's selling is from and for Americans; pharmaceuticals, remortaging, qualifications, you name it - it's all very obviously targetted at an American audience. I couldn't make use of any of it, even if I wanted to (which I obviously don't)! I mean, for fuck's sake, my email address ends in .co.uk, you think they'd get a clue...