EU Rolls out Anti Spam Strategy 220
An anonymous reader was one of several who noted an article about the latest developments in the
EUs War on Spam. The article is pretty realistic in pointing out that EU Legislation won't be very effective unless Asia and the US do something as well.
No more Spam (Score:4, Funny)
Gotta start somewhere (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that view is actually overly pessimistic. I'd agree that a relatively complete solution won't exist until the US and Asia also act, but it's not like a global solution is going to be decided upon and implemented in one swell foop. If something like this works well for the EU, it provides a viable option for others to follow. Frankly, I think users would be much better off under the "opt-in" method rather than "opt out" which is being considered here. It will all come down to lobbying, of course. In the opt-out corner are the advertising and marketing industries, while the ISP's basically represent opt-in. Users are left on the sidelines.
Re:Gotta start somewhere (Score:5, Funny)
If you are going to buy into the party line that there is no point in the EU fighting spam without North America and Asia follwing step-in-step, you must eventually decide that there is no point fighting spam at all. There will always be somewhere for spammers to run. Because when it comes down to it, even if North America, the EU and Asia all work together to pass anti-spam legislation, there is little chance of Antigua, Cyprus and Sealand [sealandgov.com] following suit.
Really though, every little strike against spam makes real headway. If we can eventually drive all spammers to little off-shore havens, it will that much easier to block them. To be honest however, as a libertarian of sorts I can't help but think that filtering may actually be the better front on which to fight this war.
Re:Gotta start somewhere (Score:5, Insightful)
Ho hum. read the Acceptable Use Policy [havenco.com] for HavenCo before you start pointing fingers...
Re:Gotta start somewhere (Score:2, Informative)
On May 1 2004, Cyprus (at least the internationally recognized greek part) wil join the EU. So if the EU goes ahead with this anti-spam legislation, Cyprus will have no choice but to follow.
Cyprus (Score:2)
(not that N.T.P never happen to any member state)
Re:Gotta start somewhere (Score:2)
Re:Gotta start somewhere (Score:2)
As with IP laws, spam laws will only encourage spammers to find a new way for sending spam. You need a technical solution (be it closing open relays or refactoring the SMTP protocol -my personal favorite solution-) to solve this problem. You can extrapolate the development of the spam problem with the development of P2P systems. Hundreds of times the *AA h
Re:Gotta start somewhere (Score:5, Insightful)
People flying through the windshield when they run their car into something is a technical problem. The auto industry developed safety technology on their own, thus solving the problem technically. But seatbelts didn't save many lives until they were legislated into all cars.
People still die in auto accidents, and laws don't work completely (I'm so tired of 'click-it or ticket PSAs). But sometimes solving the technical problem isn't enough.
I think this is a case where some laws need to be involved. You can't control people's behavior with software. You can't really do it with laws either, but that *is* their problem domain.
Re:Gotta start somewhere (Score:2)
Spammers need to be declared to be in league with Bin Laden, and splatted.
Hrmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Are we fighting a losing battle? or have the tides turned against the spammers?
Re:Hrmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Once the majority of the people realizes that the Internet is turning into one huge advertisment brothel, where you will be flooded with advertisments, autodialers, etc. etc. unless you follow a 2 week course on how to protect yourself, things will turn ugly for spammers.
The
Re:Hrmm (Score:2)
Which Laws, only EU Directive (Score:2)
No, we're fighting the *wrong* battle (Score:5, Insightful)
The enemy is the person operating an ongoing fraudulent enterprise which motivates the guy sending the mail to do that. This is also the EASIEST person to catch, since they have to get paid somehow and the money CAN be followed.
If governments were willing to actually police the fraud, the market for spam-senders would shrink dramatically.
What mystifies me is why they're not willing to do this. Is it some BS gung-ho pro-sales "caveat emptor" mentality? I find this hard to believe, since I don't think any of the products I've seen turn up in ~/mail/bogofiltered are even remotely legitimate -- quack potions, stock and money schemes, 419 scams, et al. We're not talking about laundry soap that really doesn't get my whites their whitest, we're talking about products that are prima faciae nonfunctional.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised about this, though, since at least the US government doesn't really care about fraud generally. How long have we been putting up with slamming and cramming? Has anyone gone to jail, or just "admitted no wrongdoing and paid a small fine"? Shit, even the number of culpable execs who deliberately and systematically lied and lined their own pockets on Wall Street who actually will end up in jail is probably countable on my two hands.
Overall I think if the government actually was interested in prosecuting the fraudulent practices and business contained in spam, spam itself would have a serious dent in it.
Instead, they do nothing, letting the spam problem get so far out of hand that the only thing left is to implement heavy regulation of email -- why do I seem to see John Ashcroft smirking in the corner during the otherwise laughable keystone-cops debates on spam?
Re:No, we're fighting the *wrong* battle (Score:4, Interesting)
Marketers see this, and realise that if even obvious fraudsters can make money out of spam then legitimate businesses with legitimate pitches are likely to do even better, if only they can get the law to say that spam is OK.
Re:No, we're fighting the *wrong* battle (Score:2)
I wholeheartedly agree that in the fight against spam, the guy hiring a spammer is our enemy as well. However what's to stop me from hiring a spammer to promote my competitor's business, thereby landing him in legal troubles?
Re:No, we're fighting the *wrong* battle (Score:2)
My guess this would be a public relations disaster for any company, and would probably result in massive trademark infringment civil suits and possibly criminal fraud prosecution as well.
It's Freedom Spam now (Score:4, Insightful)
Ahh, the American way.
Re:It's Freedom Spam now (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's Freedom Spam now (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, we realize it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, we understand that. Doing something about it when you have an incredibly strong and politically active business sector is rather difficult, actually. And here, with 280M people, political campaigns are very expensive. Hence, congressmen have to sidle up to Big Business.
You have to remember, because America is so huge, we're faced with some interesting problems that Europe doesn't typically consider. Also, since we fashioned our modern democracy first, perhaps we didn't do it best, allowing others to learn from our mistakes in some ways.
However, none of that means that Americans don't realize how we're getting bent over in a lot of ways.
Re:Oh, we realize it. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Also, since we fashioned our modern democracy first, perhaps we didn't do it best, allowing others to learn from our mistakes in some ways."
I would say a lot of the problems today aren't to do with being first at fashioning a modern democracy, but rather the revolutionary nature of that democracy. Things that are no longer particularly pertinent to the modern world have been set in stone and are no very hard to change. But then what do I know? I come from a country with no
Re:Oh, we realize it. (Score:2)
What, you are implying our 2nd amendment might be slightly unsuited to modern society? How dare you! ;) That is a good point though, I certainly agree.
But then what do I know? I come from a country with no single constitution
And which is a muddle... (Score:2)
Re:Oh, we realize it. (Score:2)
And you didn't consider, the European Union has about 367 million inhabitants.
Since 1995, the 15-member Union has become the world's first economic power.
Re:Oh, we realize it. (Score:2)
Actually, I did consider the EU, though it's not really a fully political entity. And no offense, but you've seen what a mess it's become, though it certainly has its advantages. And that's without any sort of elections that span the continent. Politics and economies don't always scale easily, eh? ;)
Re:Oh, we realize it. (Score:2)
BTW, the previous poster was a little wrong on the p
Re:Oh, we realize it. (Score:2)
not more Europe? (Score:2)
First, that's not as far off as you'd think. Particularly if we're defining "europe" as "EU members." Comes to 380M, which is about 1/3 bigger. Second, Europe's never had an election, and has yet to be integrated into anything resembling a whole. Using the same currency doesn't count. If that was all, every country that pegged its currency to the dollar would be American. Doesn't
Re:not more Europe? (Score:2)
Re:not more Europe? (Score:2)
Those are not elections by the people, those are elections by their representatives. Indirectly doesn't count. THere is no election, unless I missed something big, where the 380M-odd people of Europe participate in the same election. Doesn't happen. And since my original point was that American national elections are on such a scale that no one but the very rich *
Re:It's Freedom Spam now (Score:2)
Businesses OTOH do not represent you. They represent themselves and their interests, which more often than not, do not coincide with your own.
Whether or not a business is more
Re:It's Freedom Spam now (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:aw, come on... (Score:2)
Personally I think it's somewhere in between. Excesses of socialism, or capitalism, or authoritarianism or libertarianism/anarchy are bad. I think a balance of them is required for a healthy society and the well-being of the citizens. Sometimes leaving things to business works *very* well,
Re:It's Freedom Spam now (Score:2)
What is this first amendment? What ever it is, it doesn't apply to me.
Would it be something about free speech that so many people go on about? I don't see how this is a free speech issue. I don't see why I should pay to have my inbox cluttered up with crap that I can't buy or perhaps even read, let alone whether I want it or not. People/companies can say what they like, but they can't force it on my because I have a right not t
Proactive vs Reactive (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't get it. Why are the states taking such a reactive approach to this instead of a proactive approach?
Both are useless without the enforcement of the legislatures, but "opt-in" is alot more hassel-free.
Re:Proactive vs Reactive (Score:2)
Because the USA is based on government of the corporate, for the corporate, by the corporate [opensecrets.org]. Big business interests want to get rid of all spam except for their own, so that their "legitimate" advertising messages will be unimpeded by all the other junk. Hence, they strive to craft laws that will hurt Alan-Ralsky-types but not DMA members.
Requiring true opt-in will never pass the US Congress.
too late (Score:5, Interesting)
before this thing is even PROPOSED, spammers have already implimented a method to deter this
http://www.symantec.com/spamwatch/
they've spread trojan viruses to moron AOL users who's PCs act as proxies thru which spammers safely and anonymously continue their work
Re:too late (Score:4, Interesting)
But every little bit helps. When they are forced to use proxies, all sorts of problems start to come up. None of them are insurmountable for the spammers but they do create obstacles. Their bandwidth is limited by the trojan proxy's connection, and they open themselves up to criminal charges for hacking. They run the risk of hitting the wrong computer, perhaps a machine administered by a particuraly ruthless and short-tempered sys admin.
An interesting experiement might be to see how difficult it is to set up a honeypot to catch the spammers using proxies.
Illegal (Score:2)
Why... because as of yet spamming in many areas is not illegal. Breaking into servers and abusing poorly secured SMTP hosts is, but it can be hard to trace (especially if an admin isn't smart enough to secure against open relays in the first place).
Now, take a trojan that is infecting possibly thousands of different machines to allow spammers access. The spammers still have to control and abuse this system
Re:too late (Score:2, Interesting)
Unless Asia and the US... (Score:3, Interesting)
Good luck waiting, but don't hold your breath. I think it will take an international entity like the UN to get anything done in a global scope and I don't have any great confidence in that either.
Money (Score:4, Interesting)
How many people and how many euros is the EU willing to pony up to enforce these laws? Probably about the same amount that the United States ponies up for speed limit enforcement. 55 MPH is the law, not the reality...
Chris
www.studint.com
Re:Money (Score:5, Insightful)
And burglary is a cost effective, if obnoxious, alternative to working.
Even though theft is illegal, it won't stop people from doing it. Does this mean that we should simply throw all of the theft laws?
Spam is not "cost effective", it's theft - and no legitimate business would engage in the process of stealing from people it wants to sell things to.
We need to start somewhere, and this is as good a place as any.
Re:Money (Score:2)
Re:Money (Score:2)
I'd agree with your post except for the fact that spammers forge their addresses, hijack open relays, bounce their reply-to addresses, etc (seems silly that if I really wanted their product, I have no way to get in touch with them...). If these guys used real addresses on their OWN servers, then they might be able to legitimately call it 'marketing' or 'advertising'
I don't think marketing via email would be quite as offensive if these g
from where? (Score:2, Funny)
Where, where, where does this elusive, slippery spam come from? Some mysterious nation with a communist government or an evil dictator? Bomb them. $100 reward to the first person to come up with the leading offender.
Sorry, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
While it is possible to forge headers, use open relays, trogan poor @Home users PCs, etc, etc then SPAM will not be defeated by legislation.
Tighten the protocols, then we have a fighting chance.
Wrong! (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if the person is using a ralksy to send spam from servers in China, the person hiring the ralksy is still liable.
At some point, if the product originates or the money goes through the country that's laws have been violates, you may be able to get it.
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
By tightening the protocols, we eliminate a need to even bother doing detective work to find out who is actually behind the company selling the products
Re:Wrong! (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, Symantec has tracked down the person as selling the illegal copies of their stuff, Dr. Fatburn aka George Alan Moore [barbieslapp.com] and filed a lawsuit against him. AOL has also filed a lawsuit against him for using their servers.
I was about to file a lawsuit against him for spamming me, but figured that after AOL and Syman
International Computing Organization (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe its just a pipe dream, but a nice thought anyways.
Re:International Computing Organization (Score:2, Funny)
Re:International Computing Organization (Score:3, Funny)
Congrats..
Re:International Computing Organization (Score:4, Funny)
Because then the schoolchildren of 2103 would have to learn about The Great Vi/Emacs War of 2012, where a group of rogue nations steadfastly clung to their VIM. With Switzerland, of course, using pico and generally keeping well out of things.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:International Computing Organization (Score:2)
Re:International Computing Organization (Score:2)
Re:International Computing Organization (Score:2)
Sounds great, but why stop at the computing world? With the "global economy" and market it would seem logical to have a global government/law enforcement, but I don't see this happening any time soon. Multinational corps like being able to pick and choose which country to use for labor and legal reasons. Also, there is national pride within each nation, and the US has pretty much declared themselves policeman of the world
$2.5 billion per year? (Score:3, Funny)
Where do analysts come up with numbers like this? I identify an e-mail as spam in about 1.5 seconds (but my Outlook SpamBayes filter does it even faster). If an employee is going to get that distracted by a spam (or 50 of them a day) then they will probably also get easily distracted with other things, like Slashdot ;).
Re:$2.5 billion per year? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's say they get paid at about $15K / year. That's $200K on a single ISP in a single country.
Add the cost of site licenses on spam filtering software used in Europe. Add a fraction of the cost of all IT support people in every business that's connected to the Internet in Europe. Extra hardware costs to store all that junk, etc. etc.
It adds up.
AOL users alone, put together, pay several million USD every month, because of spam (AOL raised their fees by $2 / month sometime last year because of spam related costs).
Proletariat of the world, unite to kil spammers. Remember to shoot knees first, so that they can't run away while you slowly torture them to death
Re:$2.5 billion per year? (Score:2)
Numbers? Here's some from the company I work for (A top 100 Design and Consulting Engineering firm on the East Coast). I do the spam filtering for them corporate wide, so I know the numbers are true.
For July (first 2 weeks, 1st - 14th, including the holiday):
# Employees: 490
# Spam blocked: 43,126
# Spam/person/day: ~6.28
Now, let's use your premiss that it takes 1.5 seconds to identify and delete spam. Let's also note that our company's net profits from last year was 51 million dollars and the gross ass
The article... (Score:3, Insightful)
See also... (Score:2)
...elsewhere [slashdot.org]
Who Decides What is Spam?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who Decides What is Spam?? (Score:3, Informative)
The EU definition pretty much matches with the one at SpamHaus [spamhaus.org]: if an email is unsolicited and bulk, then it's spam. Make sure your mass mailings are confirmed opt-in and you're all set.
Well it goes something like this... (Score:5, Interesting)
US thinks "no point, we need the EU and Asia"
Asia thinks "no point, we need the EU and US"
Laws have to start somewhere, and I'm sure there's a reason why all my spam is carpetbombed US crap. I'm pretty sure it's the local laws that are the cause that I have only recieved *one* spam mail in my local language, from a national company, ever. And I sent them a reply stating that next time I would file charges, and I've never heard from them again.
We need a new mail protocol, with proper digital signing and verification of authorithy (does 231.143.211.35 have permission to send mail using the domain name "hotmail.com"?) as well as integrated feedback possibilities both to mail servers, and if possible, to those administratively responsible for a given netblock (e.g. ISP) as well. If spam was more tracable, it would be a lot easier to shut down and blacklist.
Kjella
As a writer from Asia.... (Score:4, Interesting)
What's this about an international problem again?
Re:As a writer from Asia.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:As a writer from Asia.... (Score:2)
legislation not necessary (Score:4, Insightful)
Procmail is your friend.
Re:legislation not necessary (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:legislation not necessary (Score:2)
Actually, it's both. If you look in Merrian-Webster, you'll find that "leary" is a variant of "leery".
Re:legislation not necessary (Score:2)
Wrong. That's the whole idea behind capitalism. If your ISP won't block spam, get one who will either block it for you, or get one that will tag it so you can block it yourself. If enough people left a particular ISP over spam, you better believe that they would get their rears in gear and address the issue. What's with this attitude that the government h
EU Convention on Unsolicited Email (Score:5, Informative)
Article 1: All unsolicted electronic communications (UCE) intended for commercial purposes, including but not exclusively for the sale of electronic products, personal services, errection-producing drugs, digital images of a pronographic nature, and percentage offers of the fortunes of deceased African dictators, shall follow the code of conduct established in Article 2.
Article 2: all business email sent to and from correspondents in the member states of the EU shall be provided in all four (4) of the following languages: English, French, German, and Italian, plus any two (2) of the following languages: Finnish, Swedish, Irish, Spanish, Portuguese. The Dutch language may only be used as an encryption device for confidential communications.
Article 3 - Sanctions. The minimum sanction for any natural entity sending emails in an illegal combination of languages shall be no less than twenty years of service in the customer service department of the European Union.
I don't see the problem, so long as all EU countries implement this convention fully. That, and castrating spammers should take care of things.
Re:EU Convention on Unsolicited Email (Score:2)
That goes further than the EU bureaucracy. I was under the impression that there were only three official languages for government plus the language of the current EU presidency, and that German was also often added to official events out of respect for the largest member state. Wasn't there a fuss recently when F
Re:EU Convention on Unsolicited Email (Score:2)
Ah, but the EU Convention on UCE is (a) a draft convention, and (b) the choice of Italian represents the current holder of the presidency. Note that article 5 specifically allows unlimited volumes of UCE from any business owned by Berlusconi, and that includes the Cosa Nostra and associated franchises in the rest of Europe.
ROFLMAO (Score:2)
Kjella
And I missed one: (Score:2)
What the heck is up with Slashdot, can't I even flame the good old EU without being praised as a savant?
It was a joke, guys. No-one would actually use Italian as one of the four main languages. And yes, Dutch is easy to decipher, vooral voor ons nederlanstalige. Nom de dieu, quelle band de connards. C'etait une blague, mes amis. T'was een grapje. Probleme eza te. Mal
Re:And I missed one: (Score:2)
Re:And I missed one: (Score:2)
lol. Well done.
Stupid stupid moderators! (Score:2)
Anyone who marked this Informative (instead of either Funny or Troll) should be sentenced to no less than 20 whacks with a LARTing mallet.
LARTing Mallets (Score:3, Funny)
Further (I know, this is a long post, but these conventions are very detailed), the number 20 is not a valid EU number. This may surprise so
"Informative"?? (Score:2)
The Dutch language may only be used as an encryption device for confidential communications.
Re:EU Convention on Unsolicited Email (Score:2)
Article 3 - Sanctions. The minimum sanction for any natural entity sending emails in an illegal combination of languages shall be no less than twenty years of service in the customer service department of the European Union. ....
Modded as "Informative," huh? Moderators see "Article 1-3" and their eyes glaze over. Funny, though.
Re:EU Convention on Unsolicited Email (Score:4, Funny)
Also I believe your posting proves conclusively that only one in three people here can actually "read English" at all.
One Region Can't Do It All (Score:5, Insightful)
We DO need a worldwide organization to help curtail this. Isn't this the global economy nowadays? Let's treat it like one.
I would like to see however, someone being proactive. Yay EU! Pity Asia may wait and see. Pity the US may wait and see. If we all act at once, it may send the signal we're serious about this and not just testing the waters and not truly committed to ridding ourselves of this global economy drain.
what kind of opt-out? (Score:5, Insightful)
A final point: maybe the European approach is more effective, maybe not, but I don't see why legislative uniformity is necessary.... As long as all countries are effective in decreasing the incentive/legality for spammers to exist, does it matter? Silly example -- let's say large country A fined each piece of spam at $1 million, and large country B implemented the death penalty for spamming -- I think spam would decrease a lot pretty quickly. Anyway, if several competing approaches are tried on a large scale, and one is far and away a success, others will follow suit. Please don't posit US government conspiracies to protect spammers -- all the Nasdaq-100 companies hate spam (e.g., Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple). So do 99.9% of their online constituents. Those are the parties US legislators will (at least try to) protect.
Re: Universal Remove List (tm) (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of them do not allow sitewide opt-out or wildcards.
Most of them only allow number of Email addresses per user (I have an infinite number of potential Email addresses, and at least 25 active ones I use regularly).
A listing in DMA's list expires after a year or two. What sort of bullshit is that?
There is no way in hell there's going to be a "do-not-spam" list that will work, ever.
Stil
Re: Universal Remove List (tm) (Score:2)
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill morons
Re:what kind of opt-out? (Score:2)
--jeff++
Spammers Challenge Legislation.... (Score:2, Funny)
Until they target the spammer's clients, (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to stem the flood is to target those who think they benefit from it.
If the VENDOR who uses Spam has to cough up a massive fine, they will put the spammers out of business. It has nothing to do with who sent you the friggin' email but who's trying to get youto spend money. Once it COSTS THEM far more than their RateOfReturn, the Spammers will suck wind.
To Fix This Problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Asia is not a problem, if (Score:4, Informative)
90% of spam I received came from Asia (korea, china etc) until I added the following to my postfix access config file:
202 554 All sites from Asia-Pacific NIC blocked due to excessive SPAM
203 554 All sites from Asia-Pacific NIC blocked due to excessive SPAM
210 554 All sites from Asia-Pacific NIC blocked due to excessive SPAM
211 554 All sites from Asia-Pacific NIC blocked due to excessive SPAM
218 554 All sites from Asia-Pacific NIC blocked due to excessive SPAM
219 554 All sites from Asia-Pacific NIC blocked due to excessive SPAM
220 554 All sites from Asia-Pacific NIC blocked due to excessive SPAM
221 554 All sites from Asia-Pacific NIC blocked due to excessive SPAM
61 554 All sites from Asia-Pacific NIC blocked due to excessive SPAM
Which is great, if... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maintaining personal blacklists is pretty easy, but how much time would it take millions and millions of people to all do that? It'd be as bad as the problem it is trying to solve.
Kjella
Re:Which is great, if... (Score:2)
Using relays based in other countries won't be possible either, since relays are also blacklisted.
Unless APIC Countries do something we are screwed (Score:2, Informative)
Just for kicks I did the following:
grep queued
414686
The above email is from a spammer checking the relay.....I have to manipulate the queue daily to make sure they get the res
Opt in in the us (Score:2, Insightful)
soon as you opt in to one company their "business
partners" would start sending you "solicited
emails" too.
Would you not also need some form of personal data
protection legislation?
matfud
Re:Opt in in the us (Score:2)