OT: Spam to be made legal in US ??

  • Thread starter Thread starter Britannica
  • Start date Start date
B

Britannica

Is this true ?

http://news.independent.co.uk/digital/news/story.jsp?story=420912

I don't believe very much of what I read in newspapers - but the truth
is often stranger than fiction. From the report...

Quote -

"He told an anti-spam summit of industry and MPs in London that the US
was about to introduce legislation that would make spam legal unless
the receiver opted out of receiving it. That, he said, would
legitimise all the spammers that were currently illegal.

Spamhaus has established that 90 per cent of the spam sent to US and
European internet users originates from 200 spammers, mostly based in
Florida"

If this were to affect just US residents it would be faintly amusing
in the light of Bill Gates' much publicised war on spam, - but it
seems the whole world is to suffer the consequences.
 
Is this true ?

http://news.independent.co.uk/digital/news/story.jsp?story=420912

I don't believe very much of what I read in newspapers - but the truth
is often stranger than fiction. From the report...

Quote -

"He told an anti-spam summit of industry and MPs in London that the US
was about to introduce legislation that would make spam legal unless
the receiver opted out of receiving it. That, he said, would
legitimise all the spammers that were currently illegal.

Spamhaus has established that 90 per cent of the spam sent to US and
European internet users originates from 200 spammers, mostly based in
Florida"

If this were to affect just US residents it would be faintly amusing
in the light of Bill Gates' much publicised war on spam, - but it
seems the whole world is to suffer the consequences.
Click to expand...

What Microsoft will be wanting is legal spam and illegal spam, as much
as I find that distasteful it would be an improvement on the
embarassment of having to explain to a very young child what all this
penis enlargement crap (and worse) is in their in box ! It's the sort
of thing that might be best handled by the UN or something like that
if only they were given the right technical advice ! I'm sure they
have more important things to concern themselves with (as if it was
ever likely anyhow). True "opt-in" is the only sensible route - imho!
I think it will turn out that we will be making the most of filtering
methods for some years yet, they may well be turned on as default when
you install the e-mail client and you download the filters from the
internet..."we shall see"...
 
John said:
I feel that spammers should be required to have a legitamit reply
address on all spam! John.
Click to expand...
so, you want to quadruple the amount of traffic as we all send off
hateful messages to all the spammers? *grin*
 
Absolutely! All messages, should have to have legit return addresses
available, at least in the headers, so that if someone wants to get
it, they can. Does not have to be in the text, but at least in the
header.

Kitty
 
This asumes that you are dealing with an entity that obeys rules.

Since when do criminals obey rules?
Click to expand...

This is just it, the protocols allow the methods so other than some
unthinkables which would be extreemly ill received (think american
prohibition years!) then it's going to happen so long as the mail
protocols remain the same, or when somehow the software is updated and
a fair bit cleverer. Changing them I would imagine would be no small
matter, the ISP's close access to the ports that use the protocols
sometimes (disrupting legitamate internet traffic in the process)
because the problem can be so bad... like when the spam contains a
particulary prolific e-mail worm/virus which in turn uses mail..if you
think about this then you realise that the spead is then ever
increasing until it reaches saturation point (where every machine
which is going to get it, gets it..and presumably is no longer
functional...ie. "pain in the ass"), the mail server is not immune
from being overloaded either, so it's not simply a case of either/or,
the ISP has to protect their own machinery as well.
 
John Gilmour said:
I feel that spammers should be required to have a legitamit reply
address on all spam!
Click to expand...

The new EU anti-spam law requires opt-in, correct address information, etc.

Not all EU countries have included this in their local law yet, but I know
Belgium did and AFAIK The Netherlands did. Maybe the Europeans from other
countries know more about their country?
 
Spam is not, at present, illegal any place in the USA so what's all
of the excitement about?
 
"He told an anti-spam summit of industry and MPs in London that the US
was about to introduce legislation that would make spam legal unless
the receiver opted out of receiving it.
Click to expand...

Don't know about the US, but if you swap US for UK then you have it right.
Tony Blair and his ilk in the UK want an "opt out" for spam (so as not to
upset too many American spammers and their "businesses")... and the EU
wants an "opt in" system which is 100% better and would stop me having to
deal with 100 junk emails a day.

I do not want to receive emails asking me to visit any porno sites
(espicially kiddie porn), I don't need viagra or any other pescrition
drugs, I don't need a septic tank, I don't want to help a Nigerian Dr who
wants to transfere $50M into my back account because he has no proper bank
account his own, if you can make $50,000 in a month - why the hell are you
telling me this - why not keep it to yourself?, I don't need lottery
tickets from some hole country. I actually don't need ANY of the shit that
is being sent by email.
That, he said, would legitimise all the spammers that were currently
illegal.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of spamming being illegal anywhere unfortunately.

Dariusz
--

/ Take Nobody's Word For It \
| |
| Visit my Deborah Gibson website at: |
| www.deb-ski.com |
\ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /
 
I've never heard of spamming being illegal anywhere unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Spamming does violate any honest ISP's terms of service, and many of
the schemes proposed violate various federal and/or state laws in the
U.S., as for example, the Nigerian spam, and health-related spam (the
FDA would be after the latter if they could find them.)
 
Spamming does violate any honest ISP's terms of service, and many of
the schemes proposed violate various federal and/or state laws in the
U.S., as for example, the Nigerian spam, and health-related spam (the
FDA would be after the latter if they could find them.)
Click to expand...

Am I missing something here? It's advertising, right? They must
be findable or they won't make much money will they. There's not much
sense advertising something and then hiding so your customers can't find
you.
 
msd13 wrote:
It's the sort
of thing that might be best handled by the UN or something like that
if only they were given the right technical advice ! I'm sure they
have more important things to concern themselves with (as if it was
ever likely anyhow).
Click to expand...

I'm sure the UN would be quite capable of leaping into immediate
chit-chat on the issue, debating it down ruthlessly if need be - just
like they deal with any other issue that requires some teeth. I believe
they have already upped the security status on this issue to DISCON3
(discussion condition 3).
 
Am I missing something here?
Yep.

It's advertising, right? They must
be findable or they won't make much money will they. There's not much
sense advertising something and then hiding so your customers can't find
you.
Click to expand...

"Finding" something like a post office box is often not of much use to
the authorities. Especially if it is in a distant country. A phone
number to an answering machine is also of little use for them as well
I expect.


Regards, John.

--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/
 
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:47:31 -0400, Uncle Fred


"Finding" something like a post office box is often not of much use to
the authorities. Especially if it is in a distant country. A phone
number to an answering machine is also of little use for them as well
I expect.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I'm beginning to appreciate the problem. Although distant
countries that have oil seem to present no barrier, but when it comes to
defending poor people's interests, we're on our own.

Thanks forthe reply, John.
 
Dariusz said:
Don't know about the US, but if you swap US for UK then you have it
right.
Tony Blair and his ilk in the UK want an "opt out" for spam (so as
not to
upset too many American spammers and their "businesses")... and the EU
wants an "opt in" system which is 100% better and would stop me
having to
deal with 100 junk emails a day.
Click to expand...

Australia supposedly has an "opt in" proposal on the table. I won't be
holding my breath though. Even if this transpires, its enforcement will
be another matter. We do have our consumer watchdog, but it tends to be
a bit of a dog without teeth (á la United Nations S.C.) - lots of
barking noises for a while, then goes off to sleep in the corner :-).
 
: On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:42:37 +0100, Britannica <[email protected]>
: wrote:
:
: >
: >Is this true ?
: >
: >http://news.independent.co.uk/digital/news/story.jsp?story=420912
: >
: >I don't believe very much of what I read in newspapers - but the
truth
: >is often stranger than fiction. From the report...
: >
: >Quote -
: >
: >"He told an anti-spam summit of industry and MPs in London that the
US
: >was about to introduce legislation that would make spam legal unless
: >the receiver opted out of receiving it. That, he said, would
: >legitimise all the spammers that were currently illegal.
: >
: >Spamhaus has established that 90 per cent of the spam sent to US and
: >European internet users originates from 200 spammers, mostly based in
: >Florida"
: >
: >If this were to affect just US residents it would be faintly amusing
: >in the light of Bill Gates' much publicised war on spam, - but it
: >seems the whole world is to suffer the consequences.
:
: What Microsoft will be wanting is legal spam and illegal spam, as much
: as I find that distasteful it would be an improvement on the
: embarassment of having to explain to a very young child what all this
: penis enlargement crap (and worse) is in their in box ! It's the sort
: of thing that might be best handled by the UN or something like that
: if only they were given the right technical advice ! I'm sure they
: have more important things to concern themselves with (as if it was
: ever likely anyhow). True "opt-in" is the only sensible route - imho!
: I think it will turn out that we will be making the most of filtering
: methods for some years yet, they may well be turned on as default when
: you install the e-mail client and you download the filters from the
: internet..."we shall see"...
:
While slickwilliegates is mouthing about stopping(controlling) spam on
the one hand, on the other at the same time he has goons lobbying in
California to stop their proposed strict anti-spam legislation. I
thought
I posted the article some time ago. Maybe not...but I thought I did.

Helen
 
: Dariusz wrote:
: > In article <[email protected]>, Britannica
: >> "He told an anti-spam summit of industry and MPs in London that the
: >> US
: >> was about to introduce legislation that would make spam legal
unless
: >> the receiver opted out of receiving it.
: >
: > Don't know about the US, but if you swap US for UK then you have it
: > right.
: > Tony Blair and his ilk in the UK want an "opt out" for spam (so as
: > not to
: > upset too many American spammers and their "businesses")... and the
EU
: > wants an "opt in" system which is 100% better and would stop me
: > having to
: > deal with 100 junk emails a day.
:
: Australia supposedly has an "opt in" proposal on the table. I won't be
: holding my breath though. Even if this transpires, its enforcement
will
: be another matter. We do have our consumer watchdog, but it tends to
be
: a bit of a dog without teeth (á la United Nations S.C.) - lots of
: barking noises for a while, then goes off to sleep in the corner :-).
:
: --
: Alan

Sounds like the good ole US of A...wherein there exist a big bark and
nothing more when it comes to someone making a dollar, and especially
if they have lobbyist in Washington, DC (lobbyist actually run things)
and
they pledge x $ to a political campaign (not all political campaigns are
presidential). But as the Presidential electioneers get to rolling it
is untelling
what orchestra we will hear no.. always from the same old worn out song
book:
"I'm great, he's evil." "I have your best interst and want to help you,
he only wants
to take your money." "Tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend" --
we don't
really have a two party system in the USA and don't have constitutional
govenment
since Abraham Lincoln abolished it with his economics program under the
guise
(disguise) of slavery and engaged the nation in what until that time was
the bloodiest
war in history. All the talk about representing the people and
establishing democracy
for Iraq is a joke since we don't even have constitutional govenment
here. If you got
the money, honey, you get the time...on TeeeVeee and elsewhere. My
apologies
for the rant, but it's the way things are and slickwilliegates is part
of it all.

Helen

: « Optimist or pessimist aside, the glass is clearly twice as big as it
: needs to be. »
:
:
:
:
 
Back
Top