Utah's Anti-Spam Law In Action

phondew writes: "Everyone's favorite telco is getting a much deserved lawsuit for their evil ways. The twist is that Sprint had hired a third party to do their dirty work, which is in turn claiming that it only sent to people who opted-in. Of course. AdLaw has the story here, and more information on Utah's Unsolicited Commercial and Sexually Explicit Email Act can be found here ."

Re:I hate you

[NaveWeiss]

Stop hitting on J'raxis, you pervert!

Nothin Will Change

[Brian_at_Work]

Straight from the Link :
The lawsuit, filed as a class action under the name of plaintiff Terry Gillman of Murray, Utah, alleges that Sprint sent him and other Utah residents unsolicited commercial e-mail that did not include "ADV:" in the subject line.
This is not going to stop anyone from sending spam... they will just change the subject line untill it complies.... now if every stat had diffrent/uncompatible subject line requirments we could make it so complicated that they would never be able to satisfy the requirments from every state. Then they would either be constantly attacked by lawsuits or forced to stop sending emails, but I doubt I could get 50 states to agree to this big idea of mine just to stop spam ... but when I'm king maybee

Re:Nothin Will Change

[Izanagi]

50 different subject tags, great idea, really!!! So, how characters fit in the subject line?? HEHEHEE

Re:Nothin Will Change

[tunah]

But if the spam commplies, we can filter it.

Re:Nothin Will Change

[Yottabyte84]

I think that's the whole point.

Re:Nothin Will Change

[SmallFurryCreature]

Pardon me for being a bit slow but if every spam had ADV: at the beginning of the subject line wouldn't it be really easy to filter it at the server and client? The first never accepts the rest and the second just sends it straight to /dev/null or whatever that is on windows.

If everyone just deletes their spam even with the extreme low costs of sending it it just wouldn't be profitable anymore.

Is the requirement actually that odd? I do know that american game mags have (Advertisement) above all the adds or is this voluntary?

Re:Nothin Will Change

[The_Guv'na]

they will just change the subject line untill it complies.... now if every stat had diffrent/uncompatible subject line requirments we could make it so complicated that they would never be able to satisfy the requirments from every state. Then they would either be constantly attacked by lawsuits or forced to stop sending emails

Or route them through an open relay somewhere far far away? If they comply with *any* requirements/laws, they can probably be trusted to remove you from their lists if you ask niceley. Laws are no use; when spam is outlawed, only outlaws will spam.

If ISP's were required to set their mail servers to put a little ID tag [e.g. X-sent-to-hundreds-of-people] on outgoing mail, that would help stop the dumbasses. As for spamming by direct connection to mail relays in other countries, I can see little else except the ISP's monitoring communications for suspicious activity, and we all know how much the /. crowd would love that!

Ali

Re:Nothin Will Change

[DustMagnet]

Laws are no use; when spam is outlawed, only outlaws will spam.

Actually, that's why I want laws. Laws are useful, because most spammers believe what they do is both moral and legal. They are hard to stop because there aren't many clear laws. Personally, I think evading spam filters is equivalent to computer trespassing, but I doubt the courts will agree without a law stating that.

When I get spammed by a legit place, I can stop doing business with them (Walgreens, TigerDirect, HotWired, Apple, Microsoft).

Re:Nothin Will Change

[The_Guv'na]

That's exactly what I meant. Laws will stop the "moral" spammers [who would most likeley stop if asked], but there will still be the few that send shitloads, spoofing headers, evading filters, etc.

The spam that is sent regardless of laws, and with little or no way of being traced back to the sender is the "nasty" stuff that bothers people. Thats where laws would be useless. A technical solution is needed, and indeed already exists, although I have never recieved enough spam to warrant using such a program.

Ali

Re:Nothin Will Change

[lakeland]

With [ADV] in the subject line it is trivial to write filter rules that trash the mail. Even Outlook can perform that sort of filtering (I think?).

Re:"Everyone's favorite telco"

[PD]

I felt the same way until I switched to another telco for my long distance. After a few months, I got a line on my bill for a few dollars for Sprint long distance. I called them up and asked why they were charging me, that I wasn't their customer, I would never be their customer again, and that I wasn't going to pay them a penny. They balked a bit, and I asked them to check my call record. No calls. They removed the charge. A few months later the same thing happened. I told them if it happened again I was going to start calling public service commissions, writing letters to Senators, and starting web pages about their abuses and incompetence. So far, they haven't billed me again.

Really funny

[www.sorehands.com]

That a judge would consider require a plaintiff to provide a hard drive in such a case is suprising. Especially in the a couple of spam cases that I am familiar with, the judge refused to compel discovery of the email list because to produce that would invade the privacy of the spam victims.

Future headline

[Oriumpor]

Well... there is one thing to look forward to, if all the states pick-up and follow this law and someone adds a filter to qmail or procmail that blocks all compliant spam, I'm sure someone will find some way to sue you because of the filters.

Whose Hard Drive?

[jn42]

Perhaps the judge should compel disclosure of the contents of the defendants' hard drives, IE Sprint and their emailing contractor... Seems much more useful than the recipient's drive...
j

opt in???

[LinuxWoman]

I get quite a lot of spam, several times I've been able to get the company to quit sending me stuff only by complaining to the host that controls the originating IP.

Almost all spam claims that they're using an "optin list" yet most of it is for things I never would have signed up for (like farm porno). Apparently letting a spammer get hold of your email is all it takes to "opt in".

As to grouplotto, they have a clear problem with their "optin list". At one point in time, AFTER unsubscribing from grouplotto I was getting THREE copies. I hadn't resubscribed, how on earth had I managed to "opt in" not once but three times?!?

Why is it that we've figured out laws to block unwanted/unsolicited faxes but can't even begin to deal with spam or even faked "opting in"?