Getting on Top of Spam Down Under

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."

Comments

Hmm

[Vokbain]

While this is a good idea, I'm surprised most ISPs wouldn't do this anyways. It's a considerable waste of bandwidth, and their best interest to reduce spam.

Re:Hmm

[Bromskloss]

I'm surprised most ISPs wouldn't do this anyways. It's a considerable waste of bandwidth

I'd say the kind of spam filter I'd prefer does not delete any mails, just tags them so I easily can do any filtering I want with them. But oh, I forgot. You don't have to know how to use a computer to use a computer. That is, people could never be bothered with something like that.

Re:Hmm

[grasshoppa]

I'd say the kind of spam filter I'd prefer does not delete any mails, just tags them so I easily can do any filtering I want with them. But oh, I forgot. You don't have to know how to use a computer to use a computer. That is, people could never be bothered with something like that.

While elitest, you fail to grasp what the grand parent was saying;

ISPs should be doing this anyway, to save on bandwidth. This has nothing to do with a user. Hell, I'm careful with my email address, and I still get spam.

It can be considered a truth; The probability of any email address recieving spam approaches 1 in direct relation to said address's age.

So your comment really makes no sense. Yes, I tag my spam and filter it on my own. But I also have my mail server setup to check spamhaus so I can *NOT* recieve that mail in the first place.

Re:Hmm

[turbidostato]

"But I also have my mail server setup to check spamhaus so I can *NOT* recieve that mail in the first place."

Then, you know where this road takes you.

Dear Mr grasshoppa, in our fight against spam, side by side with the legal forces and (somehow) following their indications, we have to tell you we're going to shut down all your towards-port-25 traffic. Sorry for the incoveniencies.

Only they won't send the letter, you'll find suddenly because your mailq is steadily growing and no mail is going off.

And among the minority that will pay a bit of attention to it at all, quite a big percentage will be saying "after all, no honest individual has any need for a local MTA; they should be using their ISP's anyway".

Re:Agh

[Tweekster]

Most spammers are already committing multiple felonies as it is that would result in pretty harsh sentances. There is no point in NEW laws that wont be enforced when there are already laws that exist that attack the actual important laws being broken.

Hows does it define SPAM ?

[DrSkwid]

Anyone got a link to the *actual* legislation ?

Re:Hows does it define SPAM ?

[tpgp]

means commercial electronic messages that: [emphasis mine]

Here's the legislation - and a link to the rather more helpful plain english explanation of what constitutes a commercial message

Quoting it:

EXAMPLES OF COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MESSAGES
The following are common examples of electronic messages which are likely to be considered a commercial electronic message:
* offers of stock-market options, credit and mortgage arrangements;
* offers of computer goods including software and hardware;
* promotions of pharmaceutical and health-related products;
* promotions of sales at markets, shops or warehouses;
* sale of franchises or business ventures;
* advertisements for restaurants, exhibitions or trades services;
* promotions of pornographic websites or services; and
      advance fee or Nigerian scam2 emails, get-rich-quick schemes and gambling services.
*
EXAMPLES OF ELECTRONIC MESSAGES THAT MAY NOT HAVE A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE
The following are examples of electronic messages which are not likely to be considered commercial electronic messages:
* community-focussed messages, for example, about the closure of local riding and walking tracks;
* surveys, for example, collecting statistics about the use of public services and utilities; and
* newsletters, for example, providing updates about matters of interest to the local community.

Nuisance messages such as those containing viruses may also not have a commercial purpose and may not be considered to be spam.

Messages of these types however may be subject to separate Australian legislation.

So... if you're a marketing company (doing a survey), a church, political party or charity, feel free to spam whomever you choose - in Australia, or abroad, the government wont touch you.

It's appreciated, but...

[Weaselmancer]

It's another token effort.

internet service providers (ISPs) will bear some of the responsibility for helping fight spam.

Some is not all, which means that any percentage they block meets the requirement. If they delete one, and pass 1000 - that fits the definition of some.

ISPs will also be compelled to impose 'reasonable' limits on subscribers' sending email.

Do any spammers use their own account for outbound spam?

Re:Agh

[gurps_npc]

That just means they need to put in smarter controls, rather than none.

For example, you can easily arrange for all accounts to be limited to 50 outgoing email/day unless the person has a valid credit card that gets charged a $1 set up fee, or they receive by regular mail a form, that they must sign and mail back.

The few NON-spammers that send more than 50 out going/day should be either willing to wait for their 51st email per day or pay $1. I can't see anyone except spammers being pissed off about this.

Laws hit ISPs because Foreign Spammers ignore them

[billstewart]

The reason to make laws telling ISPs to fix the problem is because laws telling spammers not to spam at best would only stop domestic spammers, not foreign spammers. So if Australia actually wrote an effective anti-spammer law, it would push Aussie spammers offshore (or get them to spam Americans and leave spamming Aussies to us and the Chinese.) Of course, the politicians haven't written an effective anti-spam law, and it's not clear that such a thing is possible, so they're dealing with their previous failures by telling somebody else to fix the problems, and the ISPs are the other people who've got some ability to do it.

If they write laws that are too draconian, they'll break all the Aussie email providers and ISPs, and you'll will be stuck using Telstra to reach email providers in the US or Hong Kong - and Linux users probably won't be able to run their own email at home unless UUCP slides by the rules...