How rapidly do you expect the level of spam you receive to increase? Do you think it could possibly double or so over the next six months?

Here's some info:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,61555,00.html?tw=wn_techhead_3

What are your thoughts?

Don't think it will change that much... spam was always sent out, no matter of the law...

But don't you think that since the new law gives those who previously avoided spam a new incentive to go ahead and start sending it?

Now the U.S will spend billions of dollars trying to break down Spammers in the U.S. instead of using that money for education.

Nope.
They were sending it before either way...

And they will be sending it in the future too...

will prolly never get read of spam, hostpath... :(

The same week that the EU outlaws SPAM.

The article is trying be controversial but is very lean on facts. It showcases one fuzzy area of the bill and then piles on the "critics". Not much to go on, if you ask me.

Still, from what little I know of the bill it's at least a step in the right direction. I think it will have minimal impact on domestic spammers and practically none on the foreign majority.

Originally posted by alchiba
The article is trying be controversial but is very lean on facts.

Ummmm, you should probably read more articles.

Shouldn't make a difference. All they would have done before is paid a company based in another country to send the spam where as now they can send it for themselves

I tend to agree the article is pretty thin. No mention of specifics at all - just heresay from a few 'experts'.

I do think any push forward to get rid of spam is a good thing. It seems a lot of these bills and proposals seem to get watered down to the point of useless by the time they're passed though.

Originally posted by akashik
I do think any push forward to get rid of spam is a good thing.

Well, in this case I can't agree. I wasn't going to include this, but now I kind of feel compelled to do so...

Let me tell you what motivated me to post this issue TODAY, in particular. You know that it is my business to write high-end Web apps for medium-to-large companies. Well thanks to this new legislation, one of my clients went out and bought 2.5 million e-mail addresses to which they want to start sending unsolicited e-mails.

This is a company that, in the past, would have NEVER sent unsolicited mail. Why? Because there was too much gray area. So when I asked why now, I was told that because Congress has now "made it clear" what is allowed and not, they can legally and in full compliance mail out their unsolicited e-mails.

They want me to write the app so they can do it in-house rather than pay on a per-piece basis to an ad company. Now my quandry is do I want to take it on and accept the major dollars that would come as a result of doing the work.

Surely you would take on the job providing all was legal? If you don't someone else will. Providing everyone has agreed to receive emails it should all be abov board.

Originally posted by hostpath.com
Ummmm, you should probably read more articles.

Yes, I should and I will. But this particular article is the one chosen to begin a discussion of the issue. My opinion is that, on its own merits, this article doesn't present enough facts to fuel much debate. As an example of poor journalism. . . well, now we've got something to sink our teeth into. :)

Originally posted by EasyTemplate
Surely you would take on the job providing all was legal? If you don't someone else will. Providing everyone has agreed to receive emails it should all be abov board.

Well, personally spam doesn't bother me. However, it is a very sensitive issue and is a problem for many others. I don't need the money, so I just have to decide if I want to add to the growing UCE problem or not.

And no, thanks to Congress the recipients DON'T have to have agreed to receive the e-mails. You can send unsolicited mail until the recipient OPTS-OUT, no opt-in is required. And see, that's one of the big problems with this legislation: internet users have been trained NOT to use the embedded opt-out links in spam because they've been told those links are used to actually validate that the e-mail address belongs to a real person who is reading the e-mail.

I see a big, big problem going forward. I stand by my characterization that Congress has essentially legalized spam, at least in my view.

Originally posted by alchiba
Yes, I should and I will. But this particular article is the one chosen to begin a discussion of the issue. My opinion is that, on its own merits, this article doesn't present enough facts to fuel much debate. As an example of poor journalism. . . well, now we've got something to sink our teeth into.

Ok, gotcha. Maybe because this issue is a little more personal I've actually read quite a bit about this over the past few days, so I'm not really basing my position on a single article.

Ummmm, you should probably read more articles. with more information than is in that one :)

Its up to you to decide what you do yourself with a client and 2.5 million emails. I bet mine's in there !

:angry:

I cant believe im reading this,I THOUGHT THEY WERE TRYING TO MAKE SPAM ILLEGIAL???????? Now i read this?????????

I cant believe it!!!!!!

The Dude :angry:

Guess it's time to add "Can-Spam", "Can Spam" and the legislation names/articles/numbers to the mail filters. :)

All i can say is,WE NEED TO PRESS THESE EMAIL SERVERS TO IMPLEMENT "ONLY EMAIL ADDY'S ON THIS LIST SHOW UP IN INBOX" Then the spam will be gone!!!!!

The Dude :angry:

Originally posted by The Dude
All i can say is,WE NEED TO PRESS THESE EMAIL SERVERS TO IMPLEMENT "ONLY EMAIL ADDY'S ON THIS LIST SHOW UP IN INBOX" Then the spam will be gone!!!!!

The Dude :angry:
How many flaws can we find in this theory?
A> Person changes email
B> New customer contacts you
C> Person adds another email.

making it so that JUST people on a certain list can mail you is the worst thing in the world to do. The best way to handle it is to let the RBL's handle it, and use services such as spamcop.

Of course even better would be allowing prosecution of ISP's who tolerate spammers, and individuals who support spam (those buying those dumassed viagra pills, etc).

Spam will NOT stop until it's made not profitable. I guarantee you there's probably 10-50 responses per email that you receive, all buying the spamvertised product. Why? Because people are stupid by nature. They think they're getting a good deal, but they're only encouraging spam, and in turn getting one of the worst deals available.

There is a simple solution to spam: Using humans to filter it out. We have to realise that it is a result of a tremendously successful application of technology but we find it harmful and a nuisance. Therefore now we want an easy and automated solution.

We invented cars but we also had to find a ways to make people to drive carefully, park the cars in order, build safer cars. As a result we got the traffic police force, the traffic wardens, traffci courts, road builders and automobile engineers all working to make safer roads and better cars. Like wise we can find a easy solution using humans to check and filter spams. It can generate jobs for people and most importantly it can reduce the spams. And when spams stop being effective they will try to find a better way to market their products.

MyRealBox.Com is a test solution by Novell with almost zero percentage spam. I have an account with them for a couple of years now and I havent recieved even one spam to date.

Just because I think it would be helpful, here are the facts of the spam bill courtesy of The Institute for Spam and Internet Public Policy (http://www.isipp.com) :


1. Provide that those who advertise in spam are just as legally liable as the ones who actually send the spam. The advertisers are often much easier to find, and to prosecute, than the senders who hide in the shadows.

2. Make illegal using open proxies or relays or any other form of resource misappropriation.

3. Make illegal any commercial message sent with false header information.

4. Require a working manner to unsubscribe which must continue to work for at least thirty (30) days after the mail is initiated.

5. Make illegal a sender trying to get around an unsubscribe request by simply subscribing the recipient to another list.

6. Make illegal the providing of goods or services to those who spam in violation of the law where the provider of the goods or services has a 50% or greater interest in the spamming vendor, or has knowledge of the spam and receives or expects to receive an economic benefit from the spam.

7. Generally pre-empt state anti-spam laws, but vests in state agencies and state attorney generals the ability to sue spammers, in Federal court, on behalf of the state's citizens who have been spammed.

8. Provide for attorneys fees to the state agency in any state- initiated action.

9. Provide that Internet access service providers may sue, on their own behalf, in Federal court.

10. Provide that the law does not impact an ISP's ability to determine and enforce its own policies for transmission of email.


The bill also allows for statutory damages of between $2 million and $6 million, as well as imprisonment for up to 5 years years for violators.

Originally posted by wolfstream
How many flaws can we find in this theory?
A> Person changes email
B> New customer contacts you
C> Person adds another email.


A,B,C) All other email go into a SUSPECT FOLDER and if you authorize it fine,otherwise it gets blocked also (Even from that folder)

Problem solved

The Dude :)