Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam Government The Courts United States Your Rights Online News

Louisiana Tries Anti-Spam Law 226

Posted by michael from the good-luck dept.
chompyZ writes "The legislative battle against SPAMMING heats-up as a new law became effective yesterday in Louisiana. According to KPLC, the new law requires senders of sexually explicit e-mail to include a note in the subject line, "adv-adult," to let unsuspecting internet users know ahead of time. The Olympian reports that Louisiana officials actually think this will be effective... leaves you wondering if "officials" have any clue how SPAMMERS operate..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Louisiana Tries Anti-Spam Law More

Louisiana Tries Anti-Spam Law

Comments Filter:

  • Great (Score:5, Funny)

    by justsomebody ( 525308 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:18PM (#6714359) Journal
    Now subjetcs will be

    adv-adult: Enlarge your penis

    Way to go, I just don't know if this way leads somewhere:)

    • Re:Great (Score:4, Funny)

      by EinarH ( 583836 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:26PM (#6714399) Journal
      I think think this is a *cough* really great idea. And this is *cough* very likely to work.

      But if they had expanded it beyond only adv-adult it would have been so much better.
      Then I could have deleted my scam-419 mail together with the adv-adult mail.

      • Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)

        by orangesquid ( 79734 ) <orangesquid@nOspaM.yahoo.com> on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:34PM (#6714431) Homepage Journal
        As much as I hate spam, it really bothers me to see any laws which restrict my behavior online. I consider the Internet to be something futuristic, where individuals are free to choose their own code of ethics, rather than having one dictated to them in a larger society, and individuals are free to interpret others' actions as they want and defend themselves as they want. I know that's not very realistic, but the quasi-anarchy "back in the good old days" before the Internet was Serious Business, before the Web was Important was something amazingly freeing and fulfilling. I do not want other people just discovering the realm of computers and global communication to be shoved into just another restrictive, judgemental society like the one in which we all participate in Real Life.

        Spam ruins the online experience in the same way that mass-marketed commercialism does, and I hate to see the Internet become a thing of money and corporate power and not of freedom and individual power, but imposing restrictions doesn't seem to address the issue. However, maybe the problem will always be impossible to solve, because with freedom comes greed, and with freedom comes abuse...

        But don't forget to try our new Suction Pump!!! Garanteed results!!! An inch every week!!! Girls will beg for you!!! Order from our website!!!

        • Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)

          by maelstrom ( 638 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:59PM (#6714521) Homepage Journal
          Extremely unrealistic... The same case could be made for Slashdot itself. In the early days of /. there were no user accounts, there was no karma whoring because there wasn't a need for moderation at all. The "community" was small enough that you knew everyone and people could be trusted not to spoof other people. As /. grew, changes had to be made to the social structure in order to cope with scale.

          This is true of any society. This is not anything new, as society changed from small family groups to tribes to cities to city states to nations, more laws and force had to be applied to keep things moving smoothly.

          The challenge isn't keeping a state of "quasi-anarchy" at all costs, and whining about your rights. The challenge is taking responsibility and tutoring your elected officials on how law, technology and society intersect. Personally, I think there should be some regulation on unsolicited commercial email. Back in the good ole days I could actually use my email, now I get 20-25 spams a day vs about 1 or 2 actual useful e-mails. Personally, I find that a great restriction on my behavior and a burden to my resources.

          • Re:Great (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            20-25 spams a day is nothing. Come back when your whole meaning of email is destroyed by spammers.

          • Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)

            by orangesquid ( 79734 )
            I guess it's that my fear of organized justice as being something exploitable, unfair, and inhuman... I would rather have a vengeful vigilante on my heels than to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and weeks of my life fighting for myself in court just to end up wasting years in jail, because some big corporation has more money and power than me and disagreed with me about something.

            (But, I am rather surprised to see how everyday-normal slashdotters are... there seem to be almost no anarchists, extremi
            • > Now, if there are bans or restrictions on UCE/spam, they could be applied to me if someone decided they didn't like me.

              Well, this is exactly why the process of making laws is so difficult. It'd be nice if we didn't need any laws, and people would just act nice! The reality is that people don't act nice, and powerful people beat up on or take advantage of less powerful people. In theory, laws are written to protect us from the violent or dishonest. But, it's impossible to write laws that always ap

            • Re:Great (Score:3, Funny)

              by McDutchie ( 151611 )

              (But, I am rather surprised to see how everyday-normal slashdotters are... there seem to be almost no anarchists, extremists, or serious rebels here, which is unforunate because I hate it when cool places are filled with normality, decency, and everything that escapists and surrealists despise. Where am I supposed to find my fantasy world where I can escape from everything? If the Internet is not the place for small, free communities, then where *is* the right place? Or am I just not looking in the righ

          • I'm afraid your argument only bolsters the parent's point that spam laws are retarded. Slashdot DOES NOT have rules about what you can and can't say, beyond simple junk filters. Neither should email.

            We can solve these problems with technology instead of legislation. I am certain that automated filters + sender-side storage + encryption can solve all of the current problems with email. The *only* challenge is uprooting the established SMTP protocol. I believe that's infeasible. We just have to introduce a n
            • I'm afraid your argument only bolsters the parent's point that spam laws are retarded. Slashdot DOES NOT have rules about what you can and can't say, beyond simple junk filters. Neither should email.

              You're right. Which is surprising since you are so completely off base. The law in question DOES NOT effect what you can say in email. The law simply requires that certain types of messages (specifically, adult-oriented advertising) be accurately described in the subject. This DOES NOT limit your freedom of sp

              • The law simply requires that certain types of messages (specifically, adult-oriented advertising) be accurately described in the subject. This DOES NOT limit your freedom of speech.

                Do you insure that when you speak to someone in person, that your conversation's headers accurately reflect the content of that conversation?

                Spam laws do affect freedom of speech, in the same manner as "Fire" vs. "Theater". But as spam does not have the same direct impact on public safety as does shouting "Fire" in the class

        • Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Yeah, you're totally right. Spammers have a right to use up my mailbox space and my time. Is anyone crying over the illegality of junk faxes? Come on.

          Making laws against spam is not censorship. Stop acting like it.

        • Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)

          by EinarH ( 583836 )
          Just to clarify, my post was ment as irony and should be modded Funny if anything.

          But on the restriction/behavior controll vs. freedom subject, and without going too much into the commercialism debate; I do belive that this could have a _limited_ effect within LA. (without knowing much about LA)
          But what I don't understand is why they allow spam (as in unsolicted advertising via smtp) anyway.

          I have yet to see any good arguments why they can not ban sending out *thousands* of emails.
          I don't really beli

          • "You can send as much sendmail as you please "

            I guess the correct word is snailmail not "sendmail"...

          • I have yet to see any good arguments why they can not ban sending out *thousands* of emails.

            1. Mailing lists.
            2. There is no central authority which counts total emails sent by a given individual or host. The closest that you could come to this is not accepting more than N emails from a given host in a given day.

              Go work technical support at an ISP, if you've never done so already. Now imagine having to explain to customers that their grandmother's mail is probably getting rejected because "our mail system ha
        • As much as I hate spam, it really bothers me to see any laws which restrict my behavior online

          Yeah, OK, so why can't we break into spammers' systems? It's not a matter of "greed". Them being "greedy" is like Larry Flynt being "obscene", it's just a matter of opinion. However, if there are such things as rules, let them be equal for everybody. If spammers have loopholes by which they can break the rules, then I want loopholes, too! If spammers can abduct email relays, I want to be legally allowed to break

        • You want to see an online community where we all live by our own code of ethics?....

          Fine. Earlier today I caught some asshole trying to run his spam through my mail server. The headers also showed him forging email addresses in my own domain name.

          My "own code of ethics" is to pound this guy into a bloody pulp, then pound him some more. I doubt that you'll find many people in this situation who disagree with this attitude - this jerk is trying to profit by abusing my good name! He doesn't care that his
          • Do you really want to turn us loose on the net as vigilantes enforcing our own law?

            On second thought, no.
            On first thought, yes.

            In the heat of the moment, you do what seems best at the time. Law must be more deliberate and must take the time to cool down.

            If the net is unsafe for spammers, that's fine by me. I suspect that a bit of vigilanteism will be more effective than legislation. Retribution as it's happening is methinks rather less susceptible to forging and spoofing.
        • The law is not restricting your online activities. The law is restricting how you use other people's servers. All it is saying is that if you are using other peoples servers to send advertising for porn, that you must tell them that is what you are doing.

        • Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ibbey ( 27873 ) * on Saturday August 16, 2003 @10:20PM (#6714968) Homepage
          As much as I hate spam, it really bothers me to see any laws which restrict my behavior online.

          Oh, come on. Does the requirement to honestly label the content of a -commercial- message really affect your freedom that much? Businesses -do not- deserve the same rights that private individuals do. As an individual, I believe I have a right to control what mail arrives in my mailbox. That right trumps your right to send me whatever spam you may wish to.

          I think it's high time that more first-ammendment acivists (and I consider myself almost a first-ammendment radical) realize that along with freedom-of-speech comes an equally important right to "freedom not to be forced to listen to someone elses freedom of speech". Historically, there was no need for such a law, since you could always go elsewhere if someone was saying something you didn't chjose to listen to. As media becomes more & more closely intertwined with our lives, however, it's becoming impossible to ignore content that you want to. It's important to remember that the proposed law does not prevent you from sending me as much junk mail as you want, it just allows me to easily filter out any messages that I don't want to recieve before they reach my inbox. Laebling laws such as this one (along with adequately severe penalties to ensure compliance) are the ideal way of deailing with the problem. It allows your freedom-of-speech, and me my freedom-to-ignore.
        • The internet is no less a society than the physical one that surrounds you. Just as in real life, rules must be implemented and enforced to ensure that malevolent individuals do not ruin things for the whole.

          Hippie.
    • And I would figure this will lead to "state sponsored" spam... more of the " we are a non-profit organization" that always wants to not profit with my money!!!

      • Re:I AM a LA resident... (Score:5, Funny)

        by justsomebody ( 525308 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:44PM (#6714478) Journal
        Nope, what it would lead to it would be something like that.

        Predefined filter in newer mailers:
        move all mssages where subjects contain adv-adult
        to folder Personal Folders/Scientific matters against world extinction

        and next advertising will be something like protect your self against mom raiding your computer. Use .X.X. mailer
    • That subject line would allow an email filter to get rid of it automatically before anyone ever saw it. Of course, a good filter would already do that, but this would be a way for the ISPs to get into the act without actually censoring any mail that anybody actually wanted and opening themselves up to liability.

      Then again, I'm sure that there is someone who will sue because of his 2-inch penis.

  • At least it is a try... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by eaddict ( 148006 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:19PM (#6714367)
    Though the paragraph is somewhat pessimistic the concept is a good one. Why not try? If it works, great, if not then tweak it till it does. I hope more states try something.

    • Re:At least it is a try... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Arker ( 91948 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:45PM (#6714480) Homepage

      It's not a step in the right direction at all. It's a step toward what the spammers want - a legal backdrop to claim that what they're doing is ok. A step in the right direction would be to stop spamming, not to label their spam so they can then claim it's legal for them to steal.

      • It's not a step in the right direction at all. It's a step toward what the spammers want - a legal backdrop to claim that what they're doing is ok. A step in the right direction would be to stop spamming, not to label their spam so they can then claim it's legal for them to steal.

        One of the things it also may provide is a basis for prosecution. Most spammers will not comply because they know its easy to filter it out, and non-compliance is a reason to prosecute. Even though the prosecution may not be s

        • eh? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by DrSkwid ( 118965 )
          Why is

          "Great offer at Wal-Mart, 2 for 1 Washing powder"

          more acceptable than

          "Great offer at Sex-Mart, 2 for 1 Vibrators"

          ?
          • Why is
            "Great offer at Wal-Mart, 2 for 1 Washing powder"
            more acceptable than
            "Great offer at Sex-Mart, 2 for 1 Vibrators"
            ?

            Taking what I said in full context (although I dont see the insight) I have no problem with Sexmart sending emails under the same circumstances:

            1. You are a current customer that has not opted out.

            2. You are not a customer, but you opted in to THAT company specificially (hense, a genuine optin, not a purchased optin from a list)

            3. You are an ex customer of sexmart, and someone hack

            • Re:eh? (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Arker ( 91948 )

              No, what's acceptable is very clearly defined and has been for decades. The spammers try to pretend otherwise and enlist net-illiterate dupes to spread their obfuscations, and it's really sad.

              It's ok to send commercial email. It's ok to send unsolicitied email. It's ok to send bulk email.

              It's not ok to send email which is both bulk and unsolicited. It's as simple as that. All mass mailing lists must have proper procedures in place to make sure that they include only addresses that have explicitly asked

              • It's not ok to send email which is both bulk and unsolicited. It's as simple as that. All mass mailing lists must have proper procedures in place to make sure that they include only addresses that have explicitly asked to be included. When that is not done, the list becomes SPAM. It's as simple as that.

                It is not that simple, there is no federal law with enough teeth that defines it clearly enough. (which is why STATES are creating laws) IMHO, we need stronger legislation that ALLOWS commercial email, th

                • Re:eh? (Score:2)

                  by Arker ( 91948 )

                  What you don't understand is that there is no need for a legal definition of spam, it can be and is defined in terms of contracts and custom already. And the US federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over the internet, neither do the states. It's a worldwide extraterritorial phenomenon.

                  Now I would personally have no problem with a simple amendment to the US junk fax law making it clear that it does indeed apply to spam. I would have no problem with such a law in any country. But you and I and anyon

      • It's a step toward what the spammers want - a legal backdrop to claim that what they're doing is ok.

        No, it's exactly the right way to handle things. This law gives you an easy way to filter spam accurately, at your ISP, while not creating a slippery-slope for freedom-of-speech issues. Because this makes filtering spam at the ISP level easy & accurate, you can prevent spammers from stealing from you by just blocking there email. Severe non-compliance penalties help ensure that the process works.

        The on

        • No, you're wrong on both counts. There is no 'freedom of speech issue' with spam, and filtering doesn't prevent the theft.

          This law is idiotic, and very much a step in the wrong direction. If you want a legal solution, ask your congressman to propose an amendment to the junk spam act making it explicit that it applies to email.

      • It's not a step in the right direction at all. It's a step toward what the spammers want - a legal backdrop to claim that what they're doing is ok. A step in the right direction would be to stop spamming, not to label their spam so they can then claim it's legal for them to steal.

        Right on. Some people are whining about "free speech" problems of other methods and slippery slopes. Others see a "thinning out" of advertisers and easy filtering in some kind of utopian administration of laws like this. All o

    • A good reason not to do it: California has a similar law already on the books. Supposedly, any spam sent to someone here has to contain "adv:" in the subject line.

      Of the thousands of spam I've received today, not one has it. The law is completely useless, and not worth what it cost me to have it printed, debated and passed.
      • A good reason not to do it: California has a similar law already on the books. Supposedly, any spam sent to someone here has to contain "adv:" in the subject line. Of the thousands of spam I've received today, not one has it. The law is completely useless, and not worth what it cost me to have it printed, debated and passed.

        The problem with this law is that for it to be effective, it really needs to be national. In my opinion, it is the best possible way to prevent spam, but for it to work, it needs sever

  • IANA US resident (Score:3, Insightful)

    by imbaczek ( 690596 ) <(mf.atzcop) (ta) (kezcabmi)> on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:19PM (#6714368) Journal
    and so I don't know the law you have there, but won't it just cause spammers to move outside Louisiana?

  • Then we'd see... (Score:5, Funny)

    by dapuk ( 603973 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:20PM (#6714371)
    Subject: a<!--xkxiseig-->dv-4d<input type="hidden">ult

    Body:
    Fr33 g0at pr0n c!ick h3re!

  • donotspam.gov??? (Score:5, Funny)

    by winstarman ( 624536 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:20PM (#6714372) Homepage
    I'm waiting to see how futile an http://donotspam.gov would be.

  • What about offshore spammers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chatmag ( 646500 ) <editor@chatmag.com> on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:21PM (#6714377) Homepage Journal
    Most every porn type email I get can be traced back to servers in China or The Netherlands. I doubt those Cajuns will be going overseas anytime soon to prosecute.

    Hmm, just got a new porn email, from Pythonvideo, up in Canada. Hope those guys have a large travel budget.

    • Most every porn type email I get can be traced back to servers in China or The Netherlands. I doubt those Cajuns will be going overseas anytime soon to prosecute.

      Unless the spam you get is actually in Chinese (etc.), in most cases these are actually American spammers buying offshore "bullet-proof" hosting at premium prices in an attempt to prevent being tracked down and to prevent their sites from being shut down. Offshore hosting does not make one immune from prosecution.

      Tracking them down is actually

  • Of course spammers won't comply.... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...but they will be breaking a law in a clear cut manner, and that will be enough to start prosecuting. Jail time is the greatest way to punish someone, you effectively rob them of freedom, which you only have a finite amount of.

  • yeah (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:27PM (#6714401) Journal
    "adv-adult: Fill your prescriptions from Canada, save up to 80% !"

    That would be really helpful if I not only didn't have a spam filter, but took the time to read every spam that didn't have a pornographic title.

    Of course, this only applies to louisianans who send non-anonymous pornographic spam to other louisianans.

  • New Laws? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by heli0 ( 659560 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:27PM (#6714403)
    Spammers are already breaking laws; highjacking mail servers, using trojans such as 'jeem' and 'proxy-guzu' to make others send spam, etc. I doubt this law is going to be the one that finally makes them operate ethically.

    Perhaps they need to also make it a crime for an individual in the state to purchase a product or service from a spammer...
    • Perhaps they need to also make it a crime for an individual in the state to purchase a product or service from a spammer...


      The state should be allowed to report publicly on those who purchase products from spammers. How would you feel if your driver's license picture was printed in a billboard with the information "this guy bought penis elargement pills and viagra online... he has a microsoft in his pants!"

  • Just a hook (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SpacePunk ( 17960 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:28PM (#6714405) Homepage
    It may be ineffective in getting spammers to stop their penis and lolita porn spams, but it does give the state a way of prosecuting spammers. Remember, going after a criminal is just a matter of technicality. After all, they got Al Capone for tax evasion of all things.

  • It might not work...but... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cat_Byte ( 621676 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:29PM (#6714409) Journal
    At least spammers operating inside the U.S. will be a little nervous when they get several notifications from lawyers after it was traced back to them. Bouncing emails off of or originating from foreign mail servers may be effective for not being able to do anything at the ISP level but if they are caught in their apartment standing in a room full of penis enlargement pill cases where the law can reach them at a business level..... They'll probably wish they hadn't sold it to all those prisoners who are winking & saying "you're my little puppy now".

  • How do they plan on enforcing this stupid law(s)? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dukeofshadows ( 607689 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:29PM (#6714411) Journal
    Most spammers operate out of other countries these days, as do telemarketers. If you ask one the next time one is on the phone, they usually call from another time zone or Canada (if the target is American). Most spammers operate from servers in Canada or small Pacific Rim countries that would prove immune from this law anyway. Note also that most of these sexually explicit e-mails are easily recognized by anyone literate as they tend to accumulate several consonants at the end of the e-mail title that form babble instead of coherent words. I find this an example of people saber-rattling in preparation for re-election campaigns, especially given that several other meaningless "vote-for-me" laws were modified or enacted at the same time. These include:

    -no more execution of the mentally retarded (already mandated by the Supreme Court)

    -allows telemarketers to call you if you "are referred to them by someone you know"

    -increase penalties against drunk drivers who kill or seriously injure people while driving with over a 0.2 blood alcohol level (as if attempted/ murder is not serious enough to get life in prison anyway)

    -no credit card company can give out anything of value to students unless they also get a brochure

    Some of the new laws make sense, but again there are enough of weird and nonsensical laws that I wonder if such would make it to the legislative table, much less get passed, if not for the election coming up in about a year's time. Until then I await the first case of a spammer getting tried under this law if he/she/it/they are operating from another state or country.
    • Most spammers operate out of other countries these days, as do telemarketers. If you ask one the next time one is on the phone, they usually call from another time zone or Canada (if the target is American).

      Interesting. From email spammers, this is not news of course, but for telemarketers (something we don't have a problem with in my country, thank heavens) that means that they still must make quite a lot of money if they can afford tons of international calls. Maybe it is really cheap to call Canada-

    • Re:How do they plan on enforcing this stupid law(s (Score:4, Informative)

      by BurritoWarrior ( 90481 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:59PM (#6714518)
      Actually, many spammers operate from INSIDE the United States, they simply hire companies outside the United States to send/route the spam.
    • -allows telemarketers to call you if you "are referred to them by someone you know"

      I'll be looking forward to the next amendment which legalizes severe beatings of said someones.
    • 99% of my spam is american. And I don't live there. There is the occasional british message (about all the spare IT/C++ jobs in london, once a week or so) german message (once a month from Helga) or chinese message (once every three months in gibberish) but the rest is written in USian.

  • Good spam defence... no way to be correct (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ClarkEvans ( 102211 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:29PM (#6714413) Homepage
    As each state and locality implement their own variant, some requiring "ADV:" in the subject line, some requiring "ADULT:" and this one requiring "adv-adult", all a spammer will have to do is claim that he can't possibly satisfy all of the constraints. Why can't we have a header which marks spam as spam, such as "Solicited: no"? Or just require that all spam use "Precedence: bulk"?

    Not that any of this will be effective... but if they have to legislate something...
    • If it's legislated to a single header I think it would be more effective against U.S. spammers to also make it illegal to forge the header information showing where it came from.

      One law in place already I'm surprised people haven't used to sue their way to rich & fame is false advertising. If I ordered from each and every one of the penis enlargement spams I should be 1/4 mile or more now in length "guaranteed"! Hey...it didn't say "not cumulative with other enlargement products".
    • As each state and locality implement their own variant, some requiring "ADV:" in the subject line, some requiring "ADULT:" and this one requiring "adv-adult", all a spammer will have to do is claim that he can't possibly satisfy all of the constraints.

      Not true.

      Nobody is saying that "you must satisfy all constraints for all users" - they're saying that "for state X, you must use contstraint X, and for state Y, you must use constraint Y, etc.", which is not impossible at all.

      The spammer just has to be car

      • Now, the spammer might just say "I don't know which state they're in" - to which a judge would reply "then you shouldn't have sent them your spam."

        And at a stroke, you have either prohibited legitimate bulk mailings (such as genuine opt-in mailing lists) or you have mandated the collection and retention of residential data that are affirmatively associated with a given email address.

        The first one would be overturned by a big restraint of trade action.

        The second, ironically, would probably be welcomed

    • If I live somewhere which mandates ADV:, and I lie and say I live in a state requiring ADULT: when registering for an email account, which header are they required to send me?

  • adv-adult (Score:5, Funny)

    by SeanTobin ( 138474 ) <byrdhuntr AT hotmail DOT com> on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:30PM (#6714417)
    Check out my webcam! [goatse.cx]

    You can't mod me down! I had adv-adult in the subject line!

  • The problem (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ihummel ( 154369 )
    The problem is getting spammers to honor the law. First of all, I assume (the article did not say) that the law can only affect spammers who are based in Louisiana. That will not even chip away at spammers. Even if it were nationwide, it would be very difficult to chase down even those spammers inside our borders, and impossible to affect those outside.

    If it did work, it would make filtering "adult" spam very easy. And I would find it gratifying merely to see a few spammers behind bars, or at least fined o

    • what problem? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by twitter ( 104583 )
      The problem is getting spammers to honor the law. First of all, I assume (the article did not say) that the law can only affect spammers who are based in Louisiana.

      What? Why not everyone? Speed in LA, get a ticket. Thumb you nose at that ticket, go to jail. I don't see how spammers sending email to LA that breaks this law would be any different than violating a local speed limit. Spam me, get fined. Scofflaw the fine, go to jail. Seems easy enough, even if the vast majority of spammers get away wit

  • Actualy, any law that can be used to prosecute spammer is good. It gives a lot more liability for spammers sending sexualy explicit spam.

    The more laws a spammer breaks, the more time he will spend in jail... Hopefully, else the spammer will have to pay a bigger sum, which is good too.

  • White list (Score:5, Funny)

    by Teun ( 17872 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:42PM (#6714468)
    Handy for those with a spam filter, now you can save the only interesting spam from going to dev/null.

  • This sounds about right (Score:3, Interesting)

    by supersoftdrink ( 563614 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:51PM (#6714493)
    coming from the state that brings you drive-through daquiri huts. There's a law in Louisiana that says you can't have an open container of liquor in your car. Somehow having a styrofoam cup with a lid and a straw is still a closed container. It's things like this that made me move away from that God-forsaken state. :)

  • how i blocked USA spam (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:53PM (#6714501)

    as 99.9% of spam i recieve is usa based and iam not a USA resident or have any buisness there i managed to block it all simply by filtering the $ sign, works great and hasnt created a false positive in 2years of using this method :-)

  • This law will get precisely zero (0) significant coverage in-state. The legislature probably passed it to see if they could get some easy extra money for the budget. If push came to shove, they'd drop the issue. BTW, if you're 65 or over and are a victim, the offender must pay double. Check the notes on the law, in a link I posted earlier.
  • So if I send a saucy email to my girlfriend, I need to include "adv-adult" in the subject line?

    And in the meantime, non-explicet Spam continues to pile up.

    Good job Louisiana.

  • Qui bono? Find & fine THEM! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by crovira ( 10242 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @07:56PM (#6714512) Homepage
    Just gather spam and fine the spammer's client.

    That'll make the clients go away and kill the spam industry. Let'em use another means of advertising because spamming will cost them tens of tousands of dollars a copy.

    • Buy our new penis enlargement pills. Available only from crovira at http://www.softwareprototypes.com/

      Now, I just need to sit back until my competition is fined out of existence. You didn't email it? Oh, well, you're the beneficiary, so we don't believe you.

  • As a Louisianan... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hayzeus ( 596826 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @08:17PM (#6714579) Homepage
    I am proud of my legislature, and fully expect this to decrease the amount of spam coming into my mailbox.

    By "decrease", of course, I mean "exponentially increase unabated just as it has been doing for the last several years".

  • Why is this different than snail mail? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pmonje ( 588285 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @08:18PM (#6714586)
    If I send unsolicited porn through the USPS I can be arrested, why is email any different? You don't hear to many people screaming that not allowing porno junk mail is a violation of freedom of speech.
  • I hate spamming as much as the next guy, but when did we start SHOUTING everytime we say SPAM, SPAMMING, or SPAMMERS?

    We don't HAVE TO BE JUST LIKE THE SPAMMERS (in only six months!)

    Click to remove [signmeupformore.com] and never hear from this /. user again oulsscs tyhecfz gy pz

    kephqfh jt qwuixcdkejmpki bk niomleh n
    t u

  • Here's a novel idea (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mabu ( 178417 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @08:46PM (#6714671)
    Let's pass a law that forces district attorneys to actually prosecute spammers that break the law.

  • Excuse me, I have a question... (Score:3, Funny)

    by lightspawn ( 155347 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @09:01PM (#6714714) Homepage
    As a law-abiding spammer, how am I supposed to send both spam complying with the Louisiana law (including "adv-adult") and the Michigan law [slashdot.org] (containing "ADV:" as the first four characters?)

    It would seem to me that I have to do something like this:

    Subject: ADV: enlarge your penis [adv-adult]

    I hope no new state laws are introduced, these are making it really tough to stay profitable.

    I wonder if it's still legal to send

    Subject: ADV: adv-adultery webcams!

    The 'adv' still looks nasty, but I can't think of any word that ends in 'adv'.
    • As a law-abiding spammer

      I'm sorry, a what?!?!?! . There really is no such thing.

      how am I supposed to send both spam complying with the Louisiana law (including "adv-adult") and the Michigan law (containing "ADV:" as the first four characters?)

      Simple - you find out in which state the recipient lives, and use the appropriate subject.

      Can't do that? then maybe you shouldn't be spamming.

      I hope no new state laws are introduced, these are making it really tough to stay profitable.

      I think that's the po
    • I hope no new state laws are introduced, these are making it really tough to stay profitable.

      I hope all 50 states adopt different laws so that your subject must contain 50 different spellings of advertisment in English, Spanish and French. Then I hope the Federal government simply outlaws the practice so that you have to go get a job.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @09:28PM (#6714812)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • The internet and the Law (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mordac2k ( 515516 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @09:35PM (#6714839)
    >> leaves you wondering if "officials" have any clue how SPAMMERS operate..."

    Actually it leaves me wondering if you have any idea how the law operates. As silly as this legislation may at first appear, you have to realize that (mostly) nothing is illegal unless there is a LAW to make it so. Yes, spam is already illegal in many states, but creating a law where spammers must insert adv-adult in their subject line is another point where would-be prosecutors can trip spammers up with, thus increasing penalties and even prison time. Its like when a murder is really heinous, prosecutors dont just try someone for murder 1, they get them on just about every count thats feasible to the case.
    • he was probably referring to that the spammers are doing already illegal things to send their spam(hacked/trojaned proxys, forged headers) now, and that they probably wouldn't care much of this.

  • /dev/null (Score:4, Insightful)

    by segment ( 695309 ) <sil@po l i t r i x .org> on Saturday August 16, 2003 @10:37PM (#6715020) Homepage Journal
    What's to stop someone from say Africa, Taiwan or Korea from sending you advertisements? Absolutely nothing. While the concept is nice in theory, this law seems to be nothing more than someone doing something for possible future elections resume padding.

    So let's say you limit those in the US from sending you spam, what are you going to do when they start relaying from borked out servers abroad... Better yet what can you do. Waste taxpayer money tracking down spammers abroad... Let's see $5000 to track them, another $1000 to bring them down here to face the music, $100,000k miminum for some sort of farce trial for something you could have taken care of with spamassassin.

    Boy oh boy I don't know who is dumber the politician who passed this law or the spammer I hit d on using mutt.

  • so what are we gonna do? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @10:43PM (#6715037) Homepage
    "leaves you wondering if "officials" have any clue how SPAMMERS operate..." "

    There is no wondering here, we all know they don't have a clue in the world. But whats being done about that? I don't see any huge initiatives to educate our law makers into how these things really work. So what can Slashdot do to educate these people as to how spam really works?

  • # Bar the use of state tax dollars to cover organ transplants for inmates who were sentenced to the death penalty or life in prison and have exhausted their appeals.
    That's really ridiculous. There are few enough organs as there are. If they're there, then why should these go to waste?

  • This law worked so well in California... (Score:4, Funny)

    by geekotourist ( 80163 ) on Saturday August 16, 2003 @10:54PM (#6715065) Journal
    California has a law requiring the same sort of warning in the subject line. It became the law January 1, 1999.

    In the first months after the law went into effect the percentage of spam attacks with "ADV" or ADV:Adult" in the subject line was a full 5% on average. This compared to the months before it became law, where only 1 out of 20 spam attacks contained these in the subject line.

    This in the state with over 1/10th of the U.S.'s population.

  • I just started using it and it's worked perfect so far.

    I find it a little scary that small programs like Firebird and Thunderbird are infinitely more usable than MS products while costing infintely less. seems like some kind of conservation law is being violated.

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close