FTC Chief Bashes Anti-Spam Bills 296
teutonic_leech writes "According to an MSNBC report FTC chairman Tim Muris has indicated that the antispam laws being considered by Congress 'just won't work and may even be counterproductive - some of the proposed laws could be harmful, or at best useless.' He further concluded that 'In the end, legislation cannot do much to solve the spam problem, because it can only make a limited contribution to the crucial problems of anonymity and cost shifting.'" Other spam bits: an anti-spam service has a funny interview with one of their users, and reader der.hans submits a story and some pretty pictures discussing the quantity of Sobig.f virus emails.
bash? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:bash? (Score:3, Insightful)
New laws to outlaw spam are, as the FTC director said, probably useless. Most of the spam being sent is fraudulent or deceptive in some way--or porn spam that is also being sent to minors. Spammers aren't bothered violating current laws, why does anyone think they won't ignore new anti-spam laws?
Re:bash? (Score:2)
i find it interesting that whenever something good happens economically, the "power of the market" (demand) gets all the credit, but when the government wants to stop something deemed bad, they blame the pushers or the spammers (supply side).
the war on drugs has been a flop - why would they (the government) try the same techniques in a war on s
Re:bash? (Score:5, Interesting)
excessive concentration on the supply side.
You're quite right.
There has to be a concentration on the demand side of the equation.
Clients of the spammers need to feel it in the pocketbook for a solution to really work.
Unfortunately, a 98% effective boycott of the spamhaus clients by recipients of spam won't do much, considering that response rates are less than 1% already. Rather than attack the spammers directly, the clients should be made to pay big time if they've employed a spammer for advertising.
I don't trust Michael Powell. After caving in to media interests and allowing further consolidation [theatlantic.com] in the face of absolutely zero public support for such measures (and widespread opposition once the results of his hearings became known), his current position on spammers seems to be an attempt to position future policy to insure that there is no possible anonymity on the Internet. I dislike that solution to that problem because whistleblowers, politic dissidents in repressive regimes, etc. would be silenced alongside the despicable spammers.
BTW, along the same lines of supply and demand, there's a recent article [seattleweekly.com] about current and former law enforcement officials that want a different approach to the "war on drugs" than what's been not working for the last number of decades.
Re:bash? (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is, if you ask spammers, they'll tell you that they're not violating any laws..
That's why we need a clear message that what they are doing is wrong - they need to be shown, without any doubt, that they are indeed breaking the law.
Re:bash? (Score:5, Interesting)
And then they'll stop, just like all those people who used to download music, right?
Legal action can help curb spammers, *if* it's pursued aggressively -- but technology still has a lot more it can do. For example:
- Why do mail servers accept email whose sender address is invalid (malformed) or gives a domain which isn't resolvable?
- Why do mail servers accept email which is sent in violation of the SMTP protocol -- for example, 'spam blasters' which dump a whole lot of commands on the receiving server then disconnect without waiting for a response?
- Why don't mail servers automatically check services such as Razor? If an incoming message happens to have the same checksum as a message which has been reported to Razor several thousand times within the past half-hour, why accept the message for delivery?
- Why don't mail servers have a built-in 'tarpit' feature? In other words: if there's an incoming message, and if system resources aren't tight, the mail server could sit on it for sixty seconds before accepting it. If the sender disconnects before sixty seconds, the mail will be rejected. This obeys the SMTP protocol, and it will be unnoticed by anyone except people who want to blast tens of thousands of emails in one shot -- suddenly it becomes more time-consuming to spam, and the spammer can be stopped before he can get very far.
Re:bash? (Score:3, Informative)
Comments.. (Score:4, Insightful)
- Anti-Spam bills being considered currently inadequate: 100% correct
- Anti-Spam legislation not a primary solution: 100% incorrect.
Legislation is the ONLY way to get rid of spam. Effective legislation and prosecution, that is. The "they will all go offshore" excuse is BS. Sure, some might, but many won't. And then, the country that harbors the offshore spammer is squeezed just as korea was (do you see any korean spam any more? well, yes, but nowhere like the torrents we all received a year ago).Spam is a social problem, not a technological one. Social problems can only be solved by social contracts or laws. Technological solutions fail. Even bayesian filters, those much heralded bleeding edge anti-spam flavor of the moment, are being beaten regularly--my SpamBayes filter catches still a good deal, but more and more slip through despie over 150,000 'training' emails as the spammers get smarter. And, bayesian filters (even at the ISP level) don't begin to address the crucial problem of bandwidth use.
Legislate Now. Not big brother, not slippery-slope BS about john ashcroft in your inbox - just reasonable, progressive legislation to eliminate the spam epidemic.
Re:Comments.. (Score:2)
???
How does a US law stop spam from other countries? You can't get *all* other countries to adopt US policy.
The solution lies in the protocol. I never get spam via instant messenger. Why not add offline storage capabilities to an IM style of communication? In this respect, people can send me instant messages when I'm online, and send me stored messages when I'm offline.
If someone wants to be added to my "list of accepted communications", then they need
Re:Comments.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have, I leave my IM up all the time, I;ll come home and have a few IM from some lonely sorority babes that have a free cam, and I should come chat with them.
Why not add offline storage capabilities to an IM style of communication? In this respect, people can send me instant messages when I'm online, and send me stored messages when I'm offline.
Many IM protocols use this. Yahoo does. ICQ does. Jabber can.
Problem solved.
I'm actually baffled why an enterprising
Re:Comments.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Read what he said -- there's nothing about getting *all* countries to stop spam. If adequate laws were passed regulating spammers (and more importantly, the businesses they advertise) in the G7 countries and a few others, that would make the problem much more tractable for anyone who can live without mail from China or Russia.
Very insighful (Score:2, Interesting)
Moreover, a law which is not enforced by itself is useful when the authorities catch them for something else which is hard to prove (in the case of spam, probably fraud, misuse of other people's computers) or have jurisdiction problems. And it helps civil litigation too (I don't know if the US have a civil criminal litigation procedure, but it helps either way).
Re:Very insighful (Score:2)
ooh, no, an unenforced law is a very dangerous thing imho. in general, if a law is unenforced then everyone will feel like they can do it, which leads lots of people to do it with no social stigma, and then the police can crack down on those ppl they don't like who are breaking the law and leave the others.
if everyone breaks a law routinely, why is it there? (this could be applied to filesharing too)
yes, it
Re:Comments.. (Score:3, Informative)
Absolutely incorrect.
The "they will all go offshore" excuse is BS. Sure, some might, but many won't.
You probably have it backwards. Many will go offshore, but some won't.
Plus, it might not be necessary. There is so much spam and spammers are constantly dodging bullets to keep themselves anonymous I'm not sure if it'd really be necessary to go overseas. There are not enough resources to track down spammers that are covering their tracks unless some
Re:Comments.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you have it backwards. Spammers are sociopaths. They have turned to spamming as an alternative to other types of fraud.
Would you move to another country - turning your back on your family and friends, just so that you could continue harrassing innocent people? I doubt most spammers would either.
Spam is NOT a social problem any more than junk snail mail is a social problem.
Spam most definitely is a social problem - most s
Re:Comments.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now if you want to track down a spammer you're pretty much SOL because you can't get a subpoena to extract identity information out of the ISP. You claim that it wouldn't help because they'll use stolen credit cards and whatnot; that may be true, however I was involved in a tracking operation where we tracked the guy to his office telephon
Re:Comments.. (Score:2)
I have a problem with anti-spam legislation. The solution to spam is to rearchitect the email system to integrate authentication, approved contact lists, and overall security. Everywhere spam of any sort prospers (snail mail, telephones, windows messenger, etc), it is because these kind of controls are not in place. Take icq and aim for example. In the past two or three years I have never seen a single unwanted junk message.
A legislative solution *might*
Re:Comments.. (Score:2, Informative)
So the spammers move their relays to another location, while they still cash the checks in Florida and Louisiana. How does that help? Even
Re:Comments.. (Score:3, Informative)
There are already laws. But we're nowhere near a technically feasible way to gather evidence to prosecute, or even blacklist. Let's say Joe Q. Average gets a SPAM. How does he deal with it or report it? Something that doesn't take more of his time than to hit 'delete', and would lead to something effective?
In case you haven't noticed, in the MS blaster fallout there's kazillions of "You've been sending virus em
Re:Comments.. (Score:2)
If John Ashcroft is in my Inbox, then my spam filter is even more useless than I thought.
Re:Comments.. (Score:3, Interesting)
It makes me sad to see someone who thinks "technological solution" == "filters" get a +5 Insightful, but whatever. If you are a troll, derive whatever personal satisfaction you can from the fact that I am taking your post at face value...
Spam is a social problem, not a technological one.
You are missing the point of the spam problem. The fact that there are people who have no ethical problem engaging in spamming could be seen as a social problem, but their ability to engage in it is a technological pro
Re:Remember Prohibition? (Score:2)
Re:Remember Prohibition? (Score:2)
Tell that to the spammers [wired.com].
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. It's the best way to go.
Consider this article. Spam can be largely solved via technical means.
I read the article - it won't stop spam. The author says that the confimation is a step that spammers "do not and will not take" - how does he come to that conclusion, exactly? What's to stop a spammer from setting up an autoresponder to get past it? - Oh yeah, and say goodbye to legitimate anonymous email, too.
If none of it gets through, then the incenti
Re:No (Score:2)
I have a feeling that if/when a particular spammer quits, there becomes more incentive for the remaining spammers to get even more aggressive because they will then have a greater share of the idiot pie to feed from.
I don't think there is any "magic bullet" solution to this problem. It's probably going to be with us for a long time.
Anti-Spam laws are the only way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
It's akin to regulation of the traveling snake-oil salesman of the nineteenth century. That sort of charlatan is no longer allowed (by law), and the same could happen with strong (and strongly enforced) spam laws.
Re:Anti-Spam laws are the only way to go (Score:4, Interesting)
Your analogy is also incorrect. Snake oil salesmen were frauds. Fraud became illegal, not snake oil. I may buy snake oil (or magnet bracelets or crystals) as long as the seller is honest about what it is. Spammers may be frauds also, but the point is, if they are frauds-or in violation of other existing laws- then they should be prosecuted under those laws. If new laws are needed to clarify what sorts of advertisement are illegal, they should not deal with the technology but rather the core issue (ie. it is illegal to advertise indecent material to minors.)
I have a feeling most
Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
Its like make-work-day, for the whole country.
Don't compare (Score:4, Insightful)
What you are describing are actions done by private citizens. Quite often younger citizens.
Now in many cases, spam is a business practice: for both the spammer and whomever he/she is advertising for. While regulating businesses may not have an immediate effect, or a fully-encompassing one, it is generally more effective than regulating private citizens.
Businesses stand to lose a lot. If pushed to bankruptcy and your business is tied to your personal life, you could even lose a house/car/etc. So yes, it could be more effective.
Now, if most private citizens were spamming, it might be not effective (see RIAA: filesharing). I have enough faith in humanity that is just a few evils causing most of the spam.
Getting the laws in place, and more importantly enforcing them should start to affect spam eventually, though.
Two evils (Score:2, Informative)
best quote (Score:5, Funny)
best quote from the Knowspam.net interview:
Headline Misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
JP
Challenge/response spam filtering (Score:4, Informative)
If I e-mail someone, and I get one of those "I think you're a spammer, prove you're not" messages back, then fuck it, you're not getting my e-mail. Challenge/response breaks the whole concept of e-mail.
I personally use SpamAssassin to drop mail scoring 5-10 into a crudbox, and 10+ just gets bounced.
I don't get much spam anymore.
Automate the challenge/response ... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's no need for a human to get involved. Have a protocol whereby in order to the receiver's machine automatically issues a small, dynamically-generated math problem which requires the sender's computer a few seconds of computing time to solve. The email only gets "authorized" if a correct solution is received. This would have very little impact on a regular user, but a spammer who sends out hundreds of thousands of emails would be facing some pretty prohibitive computational costs.
Re:Automate the challenge/response ... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Automate the challenge/response ... (Score:2, Insightful)
"This would have very little impact on a regular user, but a spammer who sends out hundreds of thousands of emails" -- or a legitimate mailing list server -- "would be facing some pretty prohibitive computational costs."
Re:Automate the challenge/response ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Challenge/response spam filtering (Score:5, Insightful)
If you care enough to send email to me, you care enough to "hit reply" one time for a "new address". If I started the "conversation" you shouldn't ever get an autoresponder message.
Challenge/response breaks the whole concept of e-mail.
No. Spamming broke the concept of email years ago. The only question is how to fix things. Based on the hoops you're going through with SA, your email sounds just as broken. Been there, done that. If you don't want to email me, I'll cope somehow.
Re:Challenge/response spam filtering (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with grandparent, C/R is a lame response to spam. It puts the burden of your spam problem on those legitimate users that may want to mail you. Forgetting the technical problems, that's just rude. I am *not* your spam filter and, like parent, if I receive a C/R response I will just ignore it.
Technically, C/R is also lame.
Re:Challenge/response spam filtering (Score:2)
I'm amazed you (and most others) have it so high. For me, anything over 3 gets junked and, if it was any higher, i'd get tonnes of spam in my index.
Neat. Excuse my ignorance but would you be so kind so show me how would I go about setting that up?
Thanks.
Re:Challenge/response spam filtering (Score:2)
I use Sieve [cyrusoft.com] to sort (and bounce) my e-mail.
Re:Challenge/response spam filtering (Score:2)
I'm the same too. But if I put it any higher, i end up with loads of spam passing the spamassassin tests (because they rank around the 3.5 - 4.5).
Cheers for the link. Will check it out.
Technology legislation cuts both ways (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Technology legislation cuts both ways (Score:3, Insightful)
The price you'll pay for anti-spam laws is the complete end to anonymity on the Net: personally I think that's a pretty lousy trade compared to local filters and ready use of the delete key.
Returned mail: Service fr_cking unavailable!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Now I get piles of bounces from people with viruses.
Great.
Hard to filter since I want to see bounces from my own mail.
Always funny (Score:5, Insightful)
There shouldn't be much problem with a spam policy provided the proper definition of spam is included: bulk, unsolicited, commercial e-mail.
Defining spam as "any e-mail I don't want" is probably part of the problem with having a working anti-spam policy. It is also an incorrect definition of spam.
It also makes it impossible for people to do business, since it will be impossible for people to introduce themselves through e-mail.
Re:Always funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Always funny (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless it's personal, one-to-one conversation from a friend of mine recommending some company for something my friend knows I'm interested in, I don't *WANT* to be introduced to any company via email. If I'm interested in a company's product, I'll go Google and find it. Then we can have an email exchange if necessary. But I positively never want to receive a "cold call"
You're the one who can't define "spam" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Always funny (Score:4, Funny)
I agree completely. So please allow me to introduce myself to you. I am Thomas N'Gemba, formerly of the Ministry of Finance of Nigeria. I and my associates have recently discovered aporximately USD$10,000,000.00 in unsecured funds...
Correct definition of spam (Score:2)
The definition is, and will always be, despite the efforts of the DMA and other spam friendlies, "unsolicited bulk email".
Not commercial, not porn, not fraudulent, but ALL unsolicited bulk email regardless of content.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers. Remember to shoot knees first, so that they can't run away while you slowly torture them to death
I understand it, even though I don't like it. (Score:5, Insightful)
What the government CAN do.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Put an end forever to these bogus claims by spammers that their free speech is being interfered with, that businesses have to pay to provide means to deliver their crap, and that to do otherwise is to interfere with their business and all of their other bogus claims.
Re:What the government CAN do.... (Score:2)
James
crucial problems of anonymity? Clue bat! (Score:3, Insightful)
The solution is to outlaw spam outright. Spammers will be caught the same way murders and and crackers are cautht today. It does not require a fundamental loss of privacy or anonymity on the web. Spamming will be reduced to a tollerable level the same way speed limit laws reduce traffic deaths. Spamming and the "cost shifting" involved are simply wrong and it's right to make laws against things that are wrong regardless of how well they work.
Re:crucial problems of anonymity? Clue bat! (Score:2)
Oh... and just *HOW* do you propose that we do that? Follow the return address? It's always faked. Contact the seller? You'd be *EXTREMELY* hard pressed to prove that the seller advocated the spam. Heck, maybe the spam was sent by some bloke who works for the competition trying to disrepute these guys. How can you prove otherwise?
Nice in theory, but no go... as long as anonymity is allowed to exist in email, spam will exis
It's easy, practical and sensible to outlaw spam. (Score:3, Interesting)
Why do people always ask that question?
You catch spammers by, well, catching them! ISPs and other interested parties can trace IP numbers back to the machine that sent them, no matter how "fake" they are set. That's the same kind of detective work and reliance on witnesses that any normal crime is solved by. ISPs constantly cut off these creeps and they have to keep going from ISP to ISP to get their word out. It would be v
Re:It's easy, practical and sensible to outlaw spa (Score:2)
This is a critical failing of SMTP. It is impossible to authenticate that the email in question came from any of the IP addresses that might be found in the email.
Re:It's easy, practical and sensible to outlaw spa (Score:2)
What about infected end user machines that are being used as anonymizing zombies? There are, by all accounts, tens of thousands of them out there. You can bet that they don't keep logs.
let them have that. (Score:2)
Let them try it. The traffic controling them can be traced back if it's against the law. Once again, difficulty in enforcemant is no reason to give up.
Re:crucial problems of anonymity? Clue bat! (Score:2)
Passing Laws (Score:3, Insightful)
When we're pushing for anti-spam legislation, we're saying it's suddenly okay to pass laws that specific just because it suits us and we can't see any possible way to lose out. Is this a fair way of doing things? Are we really decided on how far we want laws to extend into computers, and where we draw the line?
Anonymity will be surrendered to fight spam (Score:4, Insightful)
Anonymity is something that I think is one of the things that makes the internet so valuable as a tool to help people fight oppressive governments and corporations. When it is impossible for a spammer to cover his tracks, it will also be equally impossible for a political or corporate dissident to do so as well.
The implication here is that spam can be solved by a technical solution, i.e., one that makes forging identity very very difficult. IPv6 or something like that, perhaps, with additional anti-terrorism/anti-spam identity measures, forcibly implemented (Carnivore anyone?) on ISPs and backbone providers. We'll be so happy to be rid of spam we won't realize what we gave up.
eliminating "super spammers" will help (Score:2)
Forget UCE, they need to go after the criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, my problem has lately has not been the tradition UCE spam (Spamassasin does a pretty good job taking care of that); my problem lately has been outright criminal messages reaching my inbox.
Recently, I've been getting more and more messages spoofed as being from Paypal, Citibank, my ISP, etc, saying that my account has been suspended, and I need to verify my password, credit card number, even my mother's maiden name(!) These messages are getting more sophisciated, and appear to have (for example) a paypal.com address for me to click on.
After getting a few of these in a week's time, I checked the headers, and all seemed to come from China. I'm not sophicicated enough to trace them back any farther, but since these are so blatently criminal, I dont think they'd be originating in the US, as the potential for prosecution is so high.
Unfortunately, these messages are the most dangerous, and the hardest to stop (if they truly originate overseas.) I'd like to see some sort of internation cooperation to track and prosecute these degenerates.
So how does one find a spammer anyway? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that I want to spam mind you, but it seems like they have more than a few customers, and yet, it seems next to impossible to find a point of contact for these people.
Re:So how does one find a spammer anyway? (Score:2)
Then there're mainstream companies that have managed to fake legitimacy that target not the fly-by Viagra peddlers, but real businesses, politicians (you may recall the Howard Dean spam
Hmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Did anyone else receive that one? I thought it was nice! It was so full of bullshit (nor noteworthy amongst spam) and... it had no purpose. Spam is usually aimed at stupid and/or gullible people who are willing to believe anything they receive in their mailbox. Even if someone were to believe this one particular spam message, what would one do? Send Mr Fusion to a set of long/lat coordinates IN THE PAST? Is it some kind of joke?
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
Kind of a long shot, but with the cost of sending spam so low, who knows?
Sender Verification for SMTP? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sender Verification for SMTP? (Score:3, Informative)
SMTP doesn't know about the From: field. Or the To: field, for that matter.
Re:Sender Verification for SMTP? (Score:3, Informative)
SMTP seems like the natural place to verify
Re:Sender Verification for SMTP? (Score:2)
What is needed is a new email protocol (Score:2, Redundant)
An entirely new mail protocol probably still needs to be created though, but what I suggest is that mailservers which support the new protocol have a mechanism whereby, on a user by user basis, any SMTP-protocol mail coming in for users that have turned off SMTP could be rejected as soon as the header is finished. These mailservers would also be configured to automatically add a header for the users who don't reje
Re:What is needed is a new email protocol (Score:3, Interesting)
What allows spam isn't SMTP, it's the way SMTP is used: Any ISP will accept email for their customers from just about any ISP, many of whom in turn will allow just about anyone to sign up as a customer and send email, without proving identity or showing any bona fides beyond payment for the service.
How will your new protocol magically stop that happening?
A slight improvement could be brought about by:
Anti-Spam Services (Score:3, Interesting)
But what happens when two people, both using such a service, decide to send an e-mail for the first time? Couldn't such a setup create a endless loop of authentication requests?
Too bad they don't realize this on every issue. (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate spam as much as the next guy, but it isn't worth letting Congress think up some hair-brained, rights-destroying scheme that probably won't work anyway.
Too bad they don't realize this on most issues out there.
The guy's right (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, a good anti-spam law can contribute by driving spam further into the criminal underworld, but let's face it, it's most of the way there already, and you're not going to cut it down much more in that direction.
The key point is anonymity. If you can send email anonymously, you can send spam, legally or illegally. If you are willing not to receive anonymous email, you can receive zero spam (using whitelisting), or next to zero spam (counting on blacklisting of known spammers by name). Contrary to what some people say, the existing technical SMTP protocols are perfectly adequate for spam-free email: you just need a virtual email network using smtp, to which anonymous users are not admitted. I think it quite likely that MSN, AOL, etc. will be setting this up within the next 12-24 months. They might screw it up by trying to lock out competitors, but it can only be useful if it's reasonably inclusive.
Personally, I want to receive anonymous email, from people who've seen my web sites, or old friends who've looked up my address, or whatever. But to get these emails, I'm bound to get spam as well, legally or illegally, and I'm prepared to live with it.
Re:The guy's right (Score:2)
How anonymous do you need? I mean, I'll never know user@free-email-domain.com's real name, he probably didn't sign up for it in the first place, which is enough anonymity for 99,99% of us. But if he is using that email to commit crimes (and SPAM is a crime,
Re:The guy's right (Score:2)
What if he signed up from an internet cafe? What if he signed up from a large company that needs months to go through its logs, or doesn't have secure access internally? What if he signed up from Bangladesh? (Nothing against Bangladesh, it's just somewhere fairly remote and difficult for my local police to deal with).
If he's planning a terrorist bombing, the police can have a go at tracking him down, but at least where I live it's hard enough to get police to spend resources investigating a burglary, n
The Problem with "Anti-Spam Legislation" (Score:5, Insightful)
First, there seems to be this naive belief among politicians that if they pass an anti-spam law, spammers will actually obey it. The majority of spammers have little regard for the law and their entire business model is based on deception and other activities of questionable legality. Any anti-spam laws will be ignored (and tied up in the courts by legal challenges).
Second, is enforcement. You can write all the laws you want, but they are meaningless if not enforced. If I am deluged by spam that violates an anti-spam law, who do I complain to? Who will investigate my complaint and take appropriate action - all the way through to prosecution? If you think about this for a minute, you quickly realize that *MEANINGFUL* enforcement of anti-spam laws will take a lot of resources -- i.e., it will be very expensive.
And finally, there's the international nature of the internet. Routing spam through a mail server in a foreign country is trivial. The only likely outcome of anti-spam legislation is that spammers will use foreign servers for their e-mail and websites.
Idle CPU? (Score:2)
What's so special about SoBig? (Score:2)
The message doesn't appear to be particularly "catchy" and it seems to follow the infection vector of other worms, so why the traffic? Does it cause infected computers to send out messages more often?
Most importantly, when can I punch the person responsible for this?
Treat the disease - fraud - not the symptom (Score:4, Insightful)
You *can* easily catch the people running the businesses behind the spam; they collect money, and the money trail is easily followable. Lean on these people, and you can probably get the spammers if someone decides to make spamming illegal as well.
The key point is to not try to attack spam; it's only a symptom. The real cause is fraudulent business entperprises, and I'm mystified why the FTC or the FBI doesn't make them a higher priority. Even the DMA should back this, since it would make them look more reputable without a direct attack on a business practice they'd *like* to use.
While we're on the topic (Score:2)
Anonther Interesting Article on Spam (Score:3, Informative)
-- Some legislators have built up backing for a "do not email" list, similar to the "do not call" list that can get telemarketers in trouble. However, there's little hope it will pass. Not only would most offshore spammers ignore the list, but a list full of working emails would be gold to most spammers.
-- The article briefly restates the idea that putting a price tag on emails could help the problem. The idea is that spammers make profits only because they can spam freely in such large quantities. If there were a 10 cent bill attached to emails sent, spammers would see greatly diminished returns. Small price to pay?
-- The article also gives this interesting thought in a "do's and don't's" sidebar: Use "plus addressing" (offered at EFN) if you care about who's giving out your e-mail address. Here's how it works: Get an e-mail account. For example, nospam@efn.org. What's different with plus addressing is that nospam1, nospam2, nospam3 and so on will also be sent to you, only they'll each come into individually labeled folders. Next, when you sign up for a Victoria's Secret card and they ask for your e-mail, you give them one of those plus addresses, such as nospam14. If you ever get a spam e-mail sent to the nospam14 folder, you know which organization sold or shared your e-mail, and therefore where not to buy your panties.
Re:Gee, whouda thunk (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't like spam? Hit the delete key. Don't make a law about it.
Re:Gee, whouda thunk (Score:2)
-uso.
Re:Gee, whouda thunk (Score:2)
OR you're dealing with a server that's being hammered day in and day out by spam and the only way to deal is to spend money and upgrade the server to support the same amount of legitimate emails.
There's your problem.
Re:spam is becoming a problem like pollution (Score:3, Interesting)
No, most spam is distributed by a few known individuals. Make laws against distributing spam with harsh penalties (especially for porn spam that kids can be exposed to) and the problem will go away. After all, after the do not call registry went into effect, we have had almost zero telephone calls in the evening from people looking to sell us stuff.
Re:spam is becoming a problem like pollution (Score:2, Informative)
Re:spam is becoming a problem like pollution (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Spam cannot be routed via spurious methods.
2) Spammers can not blanket-target domains.
3) The companies who emply spammers should be held responsible.
4) The advertising should follow current laws and guidelines, with the consideration that minors may be using the internet. In general, follow the guidelines for movie trailers.
5) Transactions between companies and these 'advertising agencies' must be recorded.
6) Both the spammer and the company which sells the product must be held culpable.
Any deviation from these guidelines will only prove to make the anti-spam legislation exactly what the claims state it is, useless and filled with loopholes.
Re:spam is becoming a problem like pollution (Score:2)
This will never work, although that is the real source of the problem. The spammers will never outright say in any contract that they are going to do illegal spamming. The company can always claim they never knew what was going to be done outside the "opt-out electronic marketing" promised in the contract. In that sense, they're untouchable.
The only way to move illegally move responsibility to the clients is to somehow make it "terrorist" or
Re:spam is becoming a problem like pollution (Score:2, Insightful)
Not really (Score:3, Insightful)
Try finding another planet to live on. Then compare
Re:what can be done? (Score:2)
Re:what can be done? (Score:2)
Think of it this way, email is like a huge aircraft carrier. Its much easier for the aircraft carrier to make a long sweeping turn, than it is for it to stop on a dime,
Re:Yeah, well they bashed the anti telemarketer la (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I just don't understand.... (Score:3, Informative)
1) Bulk paper mail subsidises personal letter mail. They pay well for the privilege of sending out stuff that no one reads.
2) Spam recipients pay for the spam they get. Disk space is used, bandwidth consumed, and ISP bills are higher. Not to mention the fact that we now need extra software (more computer resources, more maintenance, more time, more money) to filter this shite out.
YOU ARE PAYING for every spam you receive, as well as every spam you filter. By the time it's left the spam