NO MORE SPAM -- it's closer than I had hoped

Beretta1526

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
1,689
Location
SW Orlando
NO MORE SPAM -- it\'s closer than I had hoped

Spam Bill

Let's hope it makes it all the way through and doesn't have some sort of special interest bullsh¡t or loopholes buried in it.
 

James S

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 27, 2002
Messages
5,078
Location
on an island surrounded by reality
Re: NO MORE SPAM -- it\'s closer than I had hoped

If they make it illegal to send me spam, they why do we need a "Do Not Spam" list? I think that perhaps the government doesn't realize just how often people change their email addresses and how many of them some people have. That would be a significantly bigger project than that do not call list.

And, there are phone charges that keep people from overseas from slurping the Do Not Call list and calling us long distance, but no such barrier exists for spam. I think a do not spam list would be a guarantee that I would get more and more spam in languages that I don't speak /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Personally I'm not interested in a do not spam list unless you can enter wildcards into it. If you can then AOL can just put in "*@aol.com" and be done with the problem forever /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

going to get nasty over this, the worst of the spammers already consider themselves above any legal proceedings anyway.
 

Beretta1526

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
1,689
Location
SW Orlando
Re: NO MORE SPAM -- it\'s closer than I had hoped

Wildcards would solve my problems, I've got 7 or 8 domains and I've had to turn off the "catch all" on all of them.
 

Mutie

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
352
Location
Los Angeles
Re: NO MORE SPAM -- it\'s closer than I had hoped

A lot of spam has already moved offshore. I think many more will just follow and we'll still have the problem. At least though they are trying to do something.

Mutech
 

Tomas

Banned
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
2,128
Location
Seattle, WA area
Re: NO MORE SPAM -- it\'s closer than I had hoped

The "Anti-SPAM Bill" as written is a very poor bill.

It is an "Opt-Out" system which means every spammer on the planet is allowed to send you spam until you tell them individually not to. (It should be "Opt-In" as supported by ALL the anti-SPAM groups - only those you WANT to mail you can send advertising.)

The legal approaches ONLY allow the government to persue SPAMmers, and remove the ability we currently have in many jurisdictions (mine is one) to take the spammer to small claims court for a legally mandated settlement (here it's US$500 per spam).

If put into effect it superceeds existing and future state level laws that have more strict requirements.

While the bill does require SPAM sent from the US to persons in the US to have an indication in the subject line that the message is advertising, there is no standardization of what the indicator should be so it can be filtered for.

Each SPAMmer gets to choose their own individual marking (I.E. ADV, Adv, a dv, commercial, sales, 44370, ndiFroDDl59K0, opportunity, com'l, ZRP, or something about 110 characters to the right of "Subject:").

Actually, for some people (such as those in Washington state) this bill is a step backward from what we already have in law, and will superceed our existing laws.

Does anyone REALLY think that there will be some government agency you can report your received SPAM to that will have adequate personell and funding to track down several million SPAM per day and prosecute the senders? Remember, if made law it will remove your ability to proceed on your own ...

Bottom line: It sounds great "Anti-SPAM Bill!" but the actual mechanics of it are poorly thought out by people who have no idea what they are doing, and with the assistance of the advertising and marketing companies (all current or potential SPAMmers). No public debate, no public input, all back-room stuff.

I was there in USENET when we formed CAUCE, and this bill is nothing that CAUCE would ever support in any way.

Most of the 'stuff' in this bill has already been tried and proved to be a failure. In fact, there is a state law in California set to go into effect soon to correct the existing California anti-SPAM laws, which are very similar to this bill, so that they can work and be effective. If this bill makes it into law, it will superceed that new California law, and reset that effort back to zero.

Enjoy your new found wealth of legalized SPAM! This bill makes 90% of it legal, including the stuff some state laws had already put a damper on.

Hope you can take the time to sort out the US SPAM and sent opt-out messages to all the lowlife sending them - if you're in the US.

Even the current anti-SPAM laws being put into effect elsewhere in the world (especially in Europe) are ten times better than this. With this federal level law in effect, it will make the US one of the few large groups of people whom it will be perfectly legal to SPAM for the forseeable future.

This bill is crap!

I need a drink.

T_sig6.gif
 

Zelandeth

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 28, 2002
Messages
1,194
Location
Northeast Scotland (Aberdeenshire)
Re: NO MORE SPAM -- it\'s closer than I had hoped

Well, doesn't look as though this will work.

Something needs to be done with it though, generally I'm getting 15-40 a day, usually round about 20, most of which get through the filters. Most of them are rather offensive in nature, or the same mail cloned 5000 or so times.

DRIVING ME INSANE!
 

Beretta1526

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
1,689
Location
SW Orlando
Re: NO MORE SPAM -- it\'s closer than I had hoped

Sorry to hear this /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

I had hoped someone knew their *** from their elbow on this. It really seems they F'd it up. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

I don't get much as I'm very careful, and I'm getting ready to close up the last of my catch-all addresses and start bouncing everything not specifically coming to a valid inbox or forward.
 

raggie33

*the raggedier*
Joined
Aug 11, 2003
Messages
13,453
Re: NO MORE SPAM -- it\'s closer than I had hoped

i dont get any spam not one at all. i use hotmail and i have it set up so only freinds on msn messenger can send me email the rest goes in junkbox on msn i check msn box from time to time to add the safe stuff. it works great.on my yahoo acct i still get spam though but i never read that acct anyways
 

Tomas

Banned
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
2,128
Location
Seattle, WA area
Re: NO MORE SPAM -- it\'s closer than I had hoped

I get my fair share (and maybe someone else's, too) since I have 12 legit e-mail adresses, two of which have been in use and published on the 'net on my sites, company sites, discussion sites, anti-spam sites and groups, USENET, and all sorts of other places since 1996.

I can do Google searchs on my e-mail addresses and come up with thousands of hits.

Only about two to five SPAM a day make it through my filters along with my big bunch of legit e-mail.

It would be nice if the SPAM load on the internet infrastructure were reduced since nearly one half the cost of bandwidth overall is from SPAM, worms, and viruses.

Thing is, this bill won't help, and likely will make it worse.

T_sig6.gif
 

Double_A

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 15, 2003
Messages
2,042
Re: NO MORE SPAM -- it\'s closer than I had hoped

I don't hold out much hope for this either. California already has an anti-spam law as well, it hasn't helped a bit.

Most of these places will move offshore or to Canada.

GregR
 

Tomas

Banned
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
2,128
Location
Seattle, WA area
Re: NO MORE SPAM -- it\'s closer than I had hoped

Just for interest:

I ran into this parody response written by another person who doesn't believe this bill is the best it could be.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you "can spam" all you want!
And we made sure there's no useful legal remedy against you!


As an added bonus, we're going to require, at no extra charge, already included in your kind and generous campaign donations, a special feature whereby your victims have to go to your very own webpage to hunt for some "opt-out" mechanism - wink wink!

Just think of all the pop up ads you can sell!

Spamming has never been so profitable and thanks to your very own congresspeople, such as Billy Tauzin, every legitimate business trying to pump up next quarter's earnings has a whole new "legitimate" revenue stream!

We heard your concerns that requiring an identifier might make effective spam filters possible, reducing the profitability of the CPU time and disk space of your victims that you steal, so we made sure the mechanism is utterly useless by making it illegal for the FTC to define a uniform identifier!

But what's that you say - those jail times and fines sound scary? Not to worry - nobody but the FTC can even instigate a prosecution and to do so, your victims have to "prove" your address obfuscation was intentional haha! Ever hear of someone proving a negative?

So no worries - you're home free, thanks to us, your humble legislative servants. We've delivered, now give us our next contribution.

Sincerely,
Congress

[/ QUOTE ]
 

Tomas

Banned
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
2,128
Location
Seattle, WA area
Re: NO MORE SPAM -- it\'s closer than I had hoped

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dedhorse.gif Well, here's Tom again flogging the **** out of that poor dead horse, but I saw a post by someone else, somewhere else that brought it all up to me again:

[ QUOTE ]
"I CAN-SPAM" act concerns

Joe Wagner
I am the CEO of Hypertouch Inc, one of the few corporations in California to have brought suit against a spammer under the existing CA anti-spam laws, and the only person so far who has been able to get the local DA to take a criminal complaints against spammers under the criminal provision of CA law. (see press.hypertouch.com/) But [thanks to the CAN-SPAM act] the protection provided by the current state laws and the new California laws poised to go into effect on January 1 will be made to disappear.

Before the CAN-SPAM act came for a vote in the House I called and spoke with our local congressional representatives' offices. One person I spoke with was Congresswoman Eshoo's chief of staff who is in charge in Internet issues to express my concerns about many parts of the bill. He told me that the congresswoman was not in favor of the Senate bill and that in any case it was not likely to be voted on before Congress broke for the year. I was disappointed to learn that on the Saturday morning following my conversation with her office, she voted nevertheless in favor of that bill.

This past week, I also called Congressman Tom Lantos' DC office to ask to speak with the aid in charge of Internet Issues, specifically, who would be advising the congressman on the CAN-SPAM act which is going back for the final vote. I had thought that his non-vote on the last House vote was at least passive resistance against the act and I was calling to thank him for and reaffirm his opposition to the . I am concerned because I learned that he hadn't abstained from the vote, he'd just not been on the floor when they finally got to it on that Saturday morning. I had hoped that our representatives had been hit with an overwhelming number of comments on the bill, how it is bad for the nation, bad for California and that they would take a stand to protect the laws that California passed that would provide unprecedented protection of its people and businesses.

I believe everyone will see a tremendous rise in the already overwhelming amount of spam if the CAN-SPAM act becomes law. It has had provisions added that give it the apropos nickname the "I CAN SPAM" act. Here are some specific concerns I have, many of which have been widely noted:

1. 1. "I CAN SPAM" Act legalizes unlimited spam -- even after "opt-outs"
The "SEPARATE LINES OF BUSINESS OR DIVISIONS" clause in the act permits spammers to send repeatedly to you even after you've opted out as long as they change domain names, a.k.a. lines of business.

(B) SEPARATE LINES OF BUSINESS OR DIVISIONS- If an entity operates through separate lines of business or divisions and holds itself out to the recipient of the message, in complying with the requirement under section 5(a)(5)(B) [the opt out section], as that particular line of business or division rather than as the entity of which such line of business or division is a part, then the line of business or the division shall be treated as the sender of such message for purposes of this Act.

The impression we have is that the DMA asked for this so that one cannot opt out of spam from the Fortune 500 by giving notice to their corporate HQ, you have to track down each "Division." ..However spammers will be able to spam me LEGALLY from all of their other lines of business. All they have to do is spend $7 every couple of weeks for a new domain for their new "Line of Busines" (they might even bother to call it a new Division) and they are home free. There is NOTHING I can do to stop this. I can track down every big spammer and personally serve them with an opt-out, but that doesn't trickle down to their thousands of "Divisions."
Let's be clear -- Spammers are already talking about this open license on their bulletin boards and mailing lists.
2. "I CAN SPAM" punishes only the spammer, not the marketer
By rotating through US based spammers, or using untraceable overseas spammers, often in Russia or China, businesses will be allowed to advertise via spam with abandon. The great strength of the upcoming California law is that it targets both the marketer and the spammer. That will be gone when California laws are made void. For example, we have been trying to get Discover Credit Card to stop sending spam to us for over 18 months. They just rotate through new spammers, and say I have to talk to the particular spammer that sent that particular spam run. First the spammer was in southern California, then Utah, then Minnesota -- and if they go to the lowest bidder, soon it will be from India or Russia. I have no way to protect Hypertouch's clients and users from Discover or other main stream companies with this new law, to say nothing of fringe spammers with their get rich quick schemes.
3. "I CAN SPAM" allows only State AG, not local DAs to prosecute
It's been a big enough battle just getting my local DA to take complaint, when I can physically sit in the waiting room until they do. What chance do we have getting the AG in a distant city to do something. The CA law have been on the books for four years. How many cases has the CA AG managed to file in that time...you can count it on one hand.
4. "I CAN SPAM" Allows no private right of action
That's what makes the TCPA so effective. It allows private right of actions, and specifically allows cases to be filed in state courts. Now only ISPs who have the money to back up a case filed in Federal court can get protection.
5. "I CAN SPAM" has no "Do Not Email" list mandate, just a FTC authorization
Took 12 years for FTC to make Do Not Call List after the TCPA "authorized it." How long, if ever, will they take to implement such a list when FTC officials have already said, on the record, they do not think a do not call list would work.
6. "I CAN SPAM" provides for no opt-out by Internet domain
You have to give a spammer your email address in order to opt-out. The act could have very easily explicitly allowed a domain owner to opt-out their entire domains from a spammer. Allowing a company or ISP IT department to protect their business. Instead, we will have to provide spammers with a full list of email addresses, and keep updating the spammers of any new accounts. Hypertouch has extensive first hand data and studies that show spammers do, as is widely believed, share "opt-out" submissions with other spammers and use them as confirmation of email addresses.

While the hour is late, I believe a stand against this act will prove quite popular come January 2, when people come back from vacation to discover their email boxes full of now legal spam. I believe a more intensive run of negative articles in the press could help temper this bill. There are a number of riders that make many of those in the House of Representative not thrilled when they come back to vote this week. Those businesses and individuals on the front line who are loosing an incredible amount daily from the high cost of spam are slowly but most determinedly getting politically organized."

[/ QUOTE ]
 

eluminator

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Messages
1,750
Location
New Jersey
Re: NO MORE SPAM -- it\'s closer than I had hoped

If the government is interested in diminishing spam, why the hell does the post office charge snail-mail spammers less postage than it charges the rest of us? Ninety percent of the stuff in my USPS mail box is unwanted and unread.

Yahoo has a proposal for controlling spam. I don't know if it will ever work, but at least they are trying.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994459
 

Tomas

Banned
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
2,128
Location
Seattle, WA area
Re: NO MORE SPAM -- it\'s closer than I had hoped

At least the SENDER has to pay for the transport and delivery of snail mail spam, eluminator, not the recipient ...

T_sig6.gif
 

James S

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 27, 2002
Messages
5,078
Location
on an island surrounded by reality
Re: NO MORE SPAM -- it\'s closer than I had hoped

I find myself the victim of some illicit activity, perhaps I even have a suit I could file if I could track the people down.

recently someone selling illegally prescribed drugs on the internet has been using random names @ mydomain.com as their return address. This has been going on for a week with no signs of stopping. Any glance at the headers will prove that it is coming from a server in Russia and has absolutely nothing to do with me except for the return address.

I am getting literally tons of bounce messages and your message was not delivered email to my postmaster address. I can't express to you how many thousands of these emails I'm getting. I am also finding that some ISP's are actually filtering on the FROM address and blocking legitimate email from my domain now. This is not the open relay blacklists, as this email does not actually come from my server, but they still do it even though there has never been a spam email in recorded history that came from the address that they stuck in the from field.

How do any of these laws help me? They don't!

So what do you do if you find yourself on that end of things? Well, first thing I did was to turn off the catch all address on my server, so things bounced to random, non-existant addresses no longer end up in my in-box. But that also means that nice features like if someone just misspells my name I no longer get that either.

This is costing me real bandwidth and real time now.

It's a nightmare. When the revolutions comes... first against the wall.. blah blah blah.

(James skulks off to sort more email...)
 

turbodog

Flashaholic
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
6,425
Location
central time
Re: NO MORE SPAM -- it\'s closer than I had hoped

Considering laws, technology, and the like I think the only realistic stop to spam is a combination of whitelist and a challenge/authentication system. Go ahead and whitelist know friends and email lists. Then the challenge system will block out all new senders, while allowing real people send you mail. All new mailing lists should automatically tell you what address they will send from so you can whitelist it when you sign up.

This solution is sort of home grown... I doubt it will work since most systems evolve toward something that makes someone richer. While the rest of the world pisses and moans, a few will do this type thing and continue merrily along.
 

smokinbasser

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
1,193
Location
East Texas
Re: NO MORE SPAM -- it\'s closer than I had hoped

I must say the AOL spam filters work fairly good on all but those viagra spams and very infrequently xxxspam. About two weeks ago I got spammed by adobe photo software like 3 to 5 times a day and marked it as spam but they just shifted a couple letters and slid in again and again
 

CanadianGuy

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jan 31, 2002
Messages
134
Location
Canada
Re: NO MORE SPAM -- it\'s closer than I had hoped

I've been using Spamihilator for 6 months or more, I think. It uses some "Bayesian" thing where it learns as it goes. Well, It has a training mode (which i think is different than the learning filter?) and you can teach it to block certain types of emails by what content they have. I love it, but I still have to sift thru all the junk because it has its own "recycle bin". And occasionally a normal email slips thru. Usually not, tho, because I taught it to accept any emails from my address book.

Just my 2 cents...
 
Top