Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Getting on Top of Spam Down Under

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the sudden-increase-in-spam-drone-numbers dept.

The Register is reporting that Australia has implemented a new industry code for the regulation of email with respect to spam. From the article: "Under the new code, internet service providers (ISPs) will bear some of the responsibility for helping fight spam. Service providers must offer spam-filtering options to their subscribers and advise them on how to best deal with and report the nuisance mail. ISPs will also be compelled to impose 'reasonable' limits on subscribers' sending email."

4 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Agh by nickh01uk · · Score: 2, Informative
    I agree, having worked at an ISP... cracking down on the network operators just tends to lead to spammers migrating more and more frequently to new hosted servers and providers. Spammers find it pretty easy to up-sticks and leave at short notice, and most providers pride themselves on getting new customers up and running fast.

    There was a newsletter I caught recently talking about some of the successful prosecutions for spam 'downunder'. It sounds like they are making progress.

    The full text of that newsletter is here.

    Nick.

  2. Unimpressed. by tpgp · · Score: 4, Informative

    Colour me unimpressed - the Prime Minister of this country (John Howard) phone spammed the continent prior to the last election, then paid his smug looking son to spam the nation.

    Anyway, back on topic, here's an article from a local paper - it contains a link to the actual code of practice (pdf warning)

    --
    My pics.
  3. Re:Hows does it define SPAM ? by tpgp · · Score: 2, Informative
    Anyone got a link to the *actual* legislation ?

    Here you go (pdf warning)

    It's not legislation, but a code of practice (a sort of howto follow the legislation). from the linked pdf:
    means commercial electronic messages that:
              (a) are unsolicited within the meaning of section 16
                      of the Act; or
              (b) do not include accurate sender information as
                      required by section 17 of the Act; or
              (c) do not contain a functional unsubscribe facility
                      as required by section 18 of the Act.'
    I'll dig up the 2003 legislation, but you will be sorely dissapointed when I do, as our lying, Saddam-conspiring, refugee hating, spamming bastard of a prime minister is a spammer himself
    --
    My pics.
  4. hear, hear by XanC · · Score: 2, Informative
    SPF, I think, is a great idea. And it can be implemented gradually. The receiving server doesn't have to simply drop messages without SPF; that's just one input to that decision.

    As more and more people put SPF into their DNS, the punishment for a message not having it can increase. In turn, then, more and more people put SPF into their DNS.

    Let's get the ball rolling!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framewo rk