Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australian Rules to Crackdown on Spam

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the no-pills-down-under dept.

siffty writes "Internet service providers could face huge fines if they do not provide spam filtering or impose email sending limits under new rules set down by a communications watchdog. The Australian Communications and Media Authority ( ACMA Media Release ) today registered the world's first legislative code of practice for internet and email service providers. Dealing with unsolicited email or spam costs business and home internet users millions of dollars each year in wasted time and upgrading security systems. But under the new code, ISPs will have to offer spam filtering options to subscribers and provide a system of handling complaints. They will also have to impose reasonable limits on the rate at which subscribers can send email."

6 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Running the Stats by Mattygfunk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The rate of spam originating in Australia had fallen in the past 12 months from 2 per cent to 1 per cent. But there was no accurate assessment of the amount of spam coming from overseas sources.

    How do they know the percentage of Australian spam if they don't know the total amount of spam?

    1. Re:Running the Stats by shellbeach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But since when has mathematical truth interfered with policy making?

      Hey, leave maths out of it! Since when has truth interfered with policy making??

  2. Stupid. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is stupid. It won't do anything against spam sent by spamming criminals who use arrays of trojaned zombies, which are the most prominent source of spam.

    1. Re:Stupid. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Stopping people sending directly would be a Bad Thing (I for one only use my ISP for an internet connection, I don't use their mail servers, etc).

      If the Government here in .au heard of this and comprehended it the port blocks would go up on port 25 in no time at all.

      I use a static smtp route through my ISP because some networks maintain lists of dynamic IP addresses and reject mail from them. Its just easier that way.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
  3. Logging IP Address by clockwise_music · · Score: 3, Insightful

    (I previously posted this on zdnet.com.au)

    What I don't understand is section 8.1: "ISPs directly responsible for the allocation of IP addresses to their subscribers (eg, all of them) will use all reasonable efforts to retain information pertaining to those allocations for a minimum period of seven days."

    Can someone tell me what this has got to do with spam? Isn't this just a case of our privacy being thrown out the window but disguising it within a "spam act"?

    7 days is a bit of a joke.. what this means in reality is that ISP's will now have to store your account name, IP address and logon-logoff times in a db. Sounds to me like law enforcement want more evidence available for either prosecution or spying.

    1. Re:Logging IP Address by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Can someone tell me what this has got to do with spam?

      If your ISP are able to map IPs to users, they can take a spam complaint and find out where the spam came from. Most spam doesn't go through an ISPs mail gateway; the spammer (or zombie PC) simply connects directly to the target mailserver. That mailserver will log the IP source of all messages.

      7 days is a bit of a joke.. what this means in reality is that ISP's will now have to store your account name, IP address and logon-logoff times in a db.

      If you live in the UK or the USA, they already do this and keep it way longer than 7 days. It's several years here in the UK and I think there are already laws stating the minimum period.