Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Opt-Out Clause Makes CAN-SPAM Worse

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the if-that-were-possible dept.

Spam 119

snydeq writes "Three years of mulling, and the FTC has made the CAN-SPAM Act worse, writes Gripe Line's Ed Foster. Chief among the offenses in the FTC's updated rules is an even worse approach to opt-out procedures. In the future, in scenarios where multiple marketers use a single email message to spam you, 'only one of the senders — the one in the From: field — need be designated the official sender who is responsible for honoring opt-outs,' Foster writes. Translation? 'Other "marketers" who used that spam message, not to mention the spamming service that actually provided the email address list, don't need to honor opt-outs. So try as you might to get yourself off a list, the real spammer can just keep changing the designated sender in the From: field and legally keep on spamming you.' The irony of the CAN-SPAM moniker gets thicker."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

CAN EAT SHIT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23735935)

A few years ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I had to take a piss. As I entered the john a big beautiful all-American football hero type, about twenty five, came out of one of the booths. I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was "straight" and married -- and in any case I was sure I wouldn't have a chance with him.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated, hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still warm from his sturdy young ass. I found not only the smell but the shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat, stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd -- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as a man's wrist. I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd always been a heavy rimmer and had lapped up more than one little clump of shit, but that had been just an inevitable part of eating ass and not an end in itself.

Of course I'd had jerkoff fantasies of devouring great loads of it (what rimmer hasn't), but I had never done it. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of the world's handsomest young stud. Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with boh hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose.

It smelled like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit without the benefit of a digestive tract? I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it smelled. I've found since then that shit nearly almost does..

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big brown cock, beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily, sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My only regret was the donor of this feast wasn't there to wash it down with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with the rich bitterness of shit. Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer.

But then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished them out, rolled them into my hankercheif, and stashed them in my briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit trickling down my throat for nearly four hours.. I must have had six orgasms in the process. I often think of that lovely young guy dropping solid gold out of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could, and at least once did, bring to a grateful shiteater.

Irony? (5, Funny)

Krishnoid (984597) | more than 6 years ago | (#23735945)

At least the accuracy of the moniker is increasing. Better than PATRIOT act, digital rights management, etc.

email is dead. (1)

Gary W. Longsine (124661) | more than 6 years ago | (#23736919)

Stone cold dead.

Re:email is dead. (2, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#23745291)

It should be, but unfortunately that's not the case in today's world. What is your proposed alternative? One that doesn't require the recipient to be online at all times? I like IM systems for transferring files and chatting. What method can you use to eliminate spam unless you don't actually have a built in method of requesting to be added to a white list - so you could just phone up the recipient instead letting them know your username. Even then if you have a phone you're still getting hit by advertising drones all day. And you can't just say "don't send through any calls" because sometimes they are actually valid calls. I should probably make a whitelist of allowed companies or certain 'keywords' mentioned that mean reception can pass a call up to me..

Smaller steps, e.g., workable authentication (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 6 years ago | (#23745983)

It seems to me that we could do a lot better just by taking a few smaller, more realistic steps.

For example, "e-mail 2.0" could provide a standardised way of identifying legitimate sending relays for given domain names, the kind of technique currently used (but in a non-standard, loophole-ridden, poorly-supported fashion) by SenderID, DomainKeys et al.

We could improve the error message system, as well. Just this week, a domain I administer got hit with hundreds of bounce messages per minute for a while, because someone kindly sent out a mass spam run with "webmaster@my.domain" as the From: address and a zillion lemming sysadmins kindly bounced it back to me. This is not a commercial set-up and beyond a certain threshold I have to pay for the bandwidth I use, so this did not amuse me: I have decent spam filtering myself, and I don't need thousands of systems who don't to wrap up the spam in a nice, relatively filter-proof way and send it right back to me!

Re:email is dead. (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 6 years ago | (#23746101)

How? I use it every day!

I believe email will become a more and more common method of communication, especially with the increased use in mobile devices.

~Dan

Re:Irony? (1)

AlexBirch (1137019) | more than 6 years ago | (#23738119)

They need the PATRIOT-SPAM act.
If you spam, you go to Gitmo!!!

Wrong Name for the Act. (5, Funny)

featheredfrog (94181) | more than 6 years ago | (#23735981)

They should have named it "MAY-SPAM"

Re:Wrong Name for the Act. (1)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 6 years ago | (#23736843)

PLEASE-SPAM?

Re:Wrong Name for the Act. (2, Funny)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 6 years ago | (#23737801)

icanhazspam? Maybe folks wouldn't be so pissed at getting it if they had that cute fat grey cat as a mascot. Then they would be like "I don't want any v1agr@! But isn't that kitty cute!" But that is my 02c,YMMV

Re:Wrong Name for the Act. (1)

slarrg (931336) | more than 6 years ago | (#23738355)

WILL-SPAM

Re:Wrong Name for the Act. (3, Insightful)

archont (1215492) | more than 6 years ago | (#23738725)

No, it's named properly. CAN-SPAM. As in CAN-THEREFORE-I-WILL. SPAM.

Re:Wrong Name for the Act. (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742819)

I-CAN-SPAM is more legible.

Re:Wrong Name for the Act. (1)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 6 years ago | (#23743477)

CAN-SPAM: We spam what we can - and what we can't, we can!

Genius (4, Interesting)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 6 years ago | (#23735991)

Come on folks you've got to admire sheer dumb ass brilliance of this level. This isn't a matter of minor incompetence this is world class stupidity. Checking my SPAM folder at the moment I picked out a few that looked similar and everyone had a different email address

So in other words this brilliant change in the rules now means that SPAM isn't SPAM. Maybe that is the real way to get rid of it... just define that it doesn't exist.

There is no poverty in North Korea either apparently.

Re:Genius (5, Insightful)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 6 years ago | (#23736257)

This is why established industries LOVE regulations! Once you have procedures in place to "follow" the regulation. Then the regulation becomes barrier to entry, or even a legal minefield, to those coming after.
In this case unsolicited bulk email would be illegal if you didn't follow all these rules up front. But for the guys that already got the grace period to follow the law it's been twisted just enough to be meaningless!!!

Power, telco, FCC, FAA, FDA, etc all those rule making agencies are run like this. It's just funny to see something so simple twisted so quickly. This is the same reason nobody wants internet neutrality put into law. Then any exceptions to blocking become "rules" that they "have" to block other content/providers... The telcos are already writing the rules the way they want with lots of backwards worded loopholes.

Re:Genius (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23736995)

This is a failure to regulate effectively, not a place in which regulation necessarily fails. Regulation in itself isn't a bad thing, it just needs to be done by people who actually want to get something done.

Definition. (3, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23737977)

Spam lacks sufficient definition. While there are certain things that most of us can agree are spam, there is a sufficiently large gray area that it's not really possible to define clearly as law.

However, some things are absurdly easy to define -- take freedom of speech. You are allowed to say pretty much what you want, where you want, short of "Fire!" in a crowded theater. No one has yet found a way to twist the First Amendment into meaning something it doesn't -- into somehow meaning, for example, that all speech except blasphemy is protected.

Murder is another one. Killing someone on purpose is murder, short of self-defense or actual war.

I think net neutrality is sufficiently easy to define that if we can get any law right, it should be this one. ISPs should transfer all packets to where they are addressed, with no preference given to one packet over another -- except for a specific customer, at their explicit request (if I ask for a spamfilter, they may intercept port 25.)

Granted, telcos may subvert the process, but I'd rather at least try than have no legislation at all.

Re:Definition. (3, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 6 years ago | (#23738223)

However, some things are absurdly easy to define -- take freedom of speech. You are allowed to say pretty much what you want, where you want, short of "Fire!" in a crowded theater. No one has yet found a way to twist the First Amendment into meaning something it doesn't -- into somehow meaning, for example, that all speech except blasphemy is protected.
That's debatable; let's look at the text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Maybe I'm just too naive, but it seems to me that it's established such that: a) there would not be a new Church of England taking power in the US and that people can choose whatever religion they want b) people could criticize the goverment. c) people can protest when the government is being stupid. d) the press should be able to report on activities of the government without limitations.

Yet somehow in the last couple hundred years, this has evolved to mean that anything anyone wants to say is fine. That freedom of the press means the press can invade peoples lives without permission or consequence. That people can smear shit on a painting, call it art, and have that considered "protected".

Are you so sure that it hasn't been twisted? Because it's used now to protect a /lot/ more than it says it protects.

Re:Definition. (3, Insightful)

Rary (566291) | more than 6 years ago | (#23738565)

How do you translate "or abridging the freedom of speech" into "people could criticize the government"? It makes no mention of the government, except in the final point, "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", which is a separate bullet point.

In other words, the entirety of the Amendment, as it pertains to freedom of speech, is "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". That's a pretty clear way of saying "the Government can't legally prevent you from saying anything -- period".

Standard disclaimer applies: IANAANHIRTCIIEIJIIDYP (I Am Not An American, Nor Have I Read The Constitution In Its Entirety, I'm Just Interested In Discussing Your Point).

Re:Definition. (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 6 years ago | (#23739977)

By looking at the context of the time; the turmoil from the Revolution was still fresh -- they were essentially codifying the things that they had fought for. Here's an interesting timeline [firstamendmentcenter.org] that gives some perspective; though it's only one slice of the picture.

Re:Definition. (1)

mixmatch (957776) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740717)

I highly doubt that the founders intended their document to be interpreted in context. Contrarily, I'm rather certain that they intended it to be read and understood literally. I'm confident that they know that they should write exactly what they meant literally, to avoid people twisting the meaning under the guise of 'historical context'.

Re:Definition. (2)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741291)

Yes, and not that I agree with HIS point, but you must look at context in order to establish meaning, at times; looking at things "literally" fails when definitions or meanings of terms shift or change.

The second amendment is a prime example of this; read it in context of the times and the meanings of the words (regulate, militia) and it's definitely saying that the federal government cannot take your guns away.

Re:Definition. (2, Insightful)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748829)

Omitting context ignores how language evolves over time. For example, the difference in meaning that "beg the question" has gone through from its original inception (indicating a circular argument) to its modern and common interpretation (raising a question - begging a question be asked).

It also ignores how society evolves over time - socially, technologically, etc. For the press to invade the privacy of even the President was unheard of in their time. It was a given: that doesn't happen in polite society. Today, invading the privacy of any public figure is the given, even if it takes telephoto lenses to do. It seems obvious to me that the US's first amendment was contextually referring solely to political and religious speech - areas of concern at the time from the former English rule of the colonies.

Re:Definition. (1)

Rary (566291) | more than 6 years ago | (#23747353)

Context is a necessary aid in understanding, but it's no excuse for not saying what you mean. Their intention may have been to protect political speech, but they clearly chose not to specifically state that, choosing instead to protect all speech, so as to ensure that political speech would be protected.

I don't think this was unintentional, as evidenced by the fact that they were quite specific in much of the rest of the text. In fact, I'd suggest that they wanted to ensure that there was no loophole whereby political speech could be suppressed by claiming it is not political speech, and thereby not protected. So, to cover all their bases, they decided to protect everything.

Re:Definition. (2, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741275)

Are you so sure that it hasn't been twisted? Because it's used now to protect a /lot/ more than it says it protects.
-1, Factually incorrect. Borrowing the other poster's phrasing, it pretty much exactly says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."

Say what you will about historical context, but I very much doubt you can twist it (or untwist it, as you say?) to mean anything other than "The people can say whatever the fuck they want." Because that is pretty close to what it literally says.

Re:Definition. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 6 years ago | (#23746481)

Say what you will about historical context, but I very much doubt you can twist it (or untwist it, as you say?) to mean anything other than "The people can say whatever the fuck they want." Because that is pretty close to what it literally says.

And yet the law recognises concepts such as defamation, certain types of intellectual property, incitement to commit certain crimes...

Either all these laws are unconstitutional, or the free speech right isn't completely universal after all.

I think there is a rational explanation for this apparent contradiction, which I've written about here before, but how do you reconcile these facts (assuming your previous comment was meant to be taken literally)?

Re:Definition. (1)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 6 years ago | (#23738491)

Murder is another one. Killing someone on purpose is murder, short of self-defense or actual war.


So, Murder isn't murder then.

You're coming at me with a knife. I shoot you. Self defense, not murder, okay.

You broke into my house. No weapon. Still scary looking. I shoot you. Self defense? Maybe, but I hope you're ready to go through a hell of a court case depending on where you live.

Or if you're attacking someone else and I end your life. Not self defense, still not murder but a huge gray area legally at least.

Both legally and morally they come down to "was lethal force required or justified, or was there another option you could have used".

You could also blur the 'war' one quiet a lot too-- gang wars certainly aren't official enough to count, but where do you draw the line? If you're with your country's armed forces in a country you have not declared war with and you shoot an enemy combatant(or potentially civilian) that may or may not represent the local country, is that murder?

(for the record, I'm just playing devils advocate here. I'm all for gun rights and such, I just know that with any definition comes corner cases and gray area.)

Re:Definition. (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741351)

Both legally and morally they come down to "was lethal force required or justified, or was there another option you could have used".
Which is pretty much what I meant by "self-defense". Sorry I wasn't clear -- and thanks for spelling that out.

You could also blur the 'war' one quiet a lot too-- gang wars certainly aren't official enough to count, but where do you draw the line?
Easy: Take the above. In a war, lethal force is pretty much necessary.

with any definition comes corner cases and gray area.
Absolutely. In fact, as long as we speak English and not Lojban, most definitions are going to have semantic problems, too.

The concern here, though, is whether net neutrality legislation could be twisted and subverted into meaning the opposite of its intent -- whether it could legitimize what the ISPs are doing. My point is that in a couple hundred years, it hasn't happened to the legal concept of Freedom of Speech -- so it is possible to create such legislation.

Oh, and it's irrelevant anyway. Even if it's a doomed effort, the alternative is to basically let the ISPs continue to do what they're doing. At least if we try to legislate it, there's a chance it will stop them, or slow them down.

Re:Definition. (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742587)

I think net neutrality is sufficiently easy to define that if we can get any law right, it should be this one. ISPs should transfer all packets to where they are addressed, with no preference given to one packet over another -- except for a specific customer, at their explicit request (if I ask for a spamfilter, they may intercept port 25.)
That's the greater net neutrality, which seems to kill all QoS. I'd settle for the lesser: "ISPs should transfer all packets to where they are addressed, with no preference given to one destination over another". That prevents them from double-dipping by putting Google on the slow lane and Yahoo in the fast lane. Shit like Comcast's blocking should be handled through fraud, false advertising and impersonating network hosts, not really network neutrality. Like when I go to the post office, it probably makes sense that some packages are express overnight while others are bulk mail. Outright killing connections owned by other network hosts by injecting false RST packets should be a federal crime though.

Re:Definition. (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23742787)

That's the greater net neutrality, which seems to kill all QoS.
Not true. Users can still do QoS on their own routers, and ISPs can do QoS if you specifically request it (but not in any way which affects other customers, unless those other customers are connecting to you.)

That's my own proposed definition.

I'd settle for the lesser: "ISPs should transfer all packets to where they are addressed, with no preference given to one destination over another".
What defines a source and a destination? Unless you're talking about an individual packet with a source IP and a destination IP, in which case, they'd throttle incoming connections.

Shit like Comcast's blocking should be handled through fraud, false advertising and impersonating network hosts, not really network neutrality.
None of this would be required for shaping to reduce torrent traffic to pretty much zero. When I was in college, it was pretty noticeable -- turn protocol encryption off, and you get BitTrickle at 5k. Turn it back on, and you might get 500k.

Net neutrality does address the fraud issue, though, in that it makes it difficult to oversell bandwidth -- because if you were to do so on a neutral pipe, P2P users would annihilate all casual browsing in a matter of minutes.

And that is really where this debate is coming from. Actual customers argue against net neutrality because they are afraid of that P2P flood crushing their Google and YouTube. If the ISPs weren't overselling bandwidth by so much, it wouldn't happen anyway, even on a neutral network -- so we would all agree that neutrality is a good idea, in full.

And by the way, as far as I can tell, I'm on such a network. I get 100 mbit fiber to the home (in Rural Iowa!) and I can use pretty much all of it, pretty much all the time. (Cost is $60/mo, no installation.) So this absolutely is possible.

Outright killing connections owned by other network hosts by injecting false RST packets should be a federal crime though.
The net result is the same. Comcast-endorsed usages, like, say, YouTube, are allowed through. Others, like BitTorrent, are made completely impractical, no matter what purpose they are being used for.

Re:Definition. (1)

Kent Recal (714863) | more than 6 years ago | (#23744343)

Lacks sufficient definition? Are you kidding me?

Spam is unsolicited bulk mail. Just like the paper-spam we get in our mailboxes.
There'd be a trivial way to legislate spam: A central opt-in list, maintained by a central authority.

Don't make me subscribe to your newsletter on your servers, make me subscribe on that central server.
So everybody who cares can verify that I requested to receive mail from spammer@viagra.ru - or not.

Enforcing that law and tracking down the original senders is a different story but claiming a lack of definition is ridiculous.

Further I firmly believe that if our government would spend only, say, a million dollars a year on a spam-fighting dept this could reduce spam by a large margin. This dept would maintain the aforementioned opt-in server and spend the rest of their time on tracking down reported spammers. Remember, only a handful of people is responsible for most of the spam in your inbox. No doubt, tracking them down and putting them behind bars is costly but it only has to be done a few times per year for great effect!

And if you think "a million dollars could be spent better elsewhere" then just consider how much the spam overhead costs our economy in lost productivity and "spam-fighting overhead"...

Re:Definition. (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 6 years ago | (#23746559)

Lacks sufficient definition? Are you kidding me?

Spam is unsolicited bulk mail.

One could quibble with that on several counts.

Why "bulk"? Is it not spam if some company sends just me a targetted advert I didn't want?

And should there be some "commercial" element? Spam is often known as UCE: unsolicited commercial e-mail. But that allows the political stuff, which is a somewhat different consideration.

Re:Definition. (1)

Kent Recal (714863) | more than 6 years ago | (#23747389)

Well, scratch the "bulk" then. Spam is any mail that I didn't request and don't want to get.
This simplest definition should be sufficient for the model I proposed because the recipient can prove at any time that he did not allow the sender to contact him. It's ofcourse up to the recipient to actually file a complaint but I'm fairly convinced that most of us would - if those complaints actually translate into legal action against the sender.

Re:Genius (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 6 years ago | (#23743787)

The only correct thing is to actually turn it around and have Opt-In lists, and anybody failing to honor the list has to pay damages.

An opt-in has to be valid at most for a year.

Unfortunately such lists wouldn't be really working either. Who does really think that spammers will care about a national law?

It's probably better to step up the efforts and require signed emails with signatures verified by a trusted authority. Anything unsigned will get junked, and it's easier to filter signed spam since each signature will be a cost for the spammer.

So now I can get offers from multiple Nigerieans (5, Funny)

multi-flavor-geek (586005) | more than 6 years ago | (#23735997)

Just think I can have all kinds of people who had a dead uncle leave me millions of dollars in a Nepal lottery and now can't touch the money without offering me a job processing money orders for 50% of the take and a free bottle of Viagr14!!!!

Re:So now I can get offers from multiple Nigeriean (1)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 6 years ago | (#23737125)

Wish I hadn't just used my mod points today, that was damn funny. I guess some mod just got his first points and doesn't understand humor very well.

whitelist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23736081)

Whitelist is your friend

Re:whitelist (1)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23737295)

Don't forget fake MX records, greylists, adaptive filters, RTBLs, checksum lists, magic fairies, and leprechauns, at least if you want to maintain a public address. (Can we please drop SMTP already? Just looking at my inbox is vomit-inducing.)

Re:whitelist (3, Insightful)

vbraga (228124) | more than 6 years ago | (#23737523)

(Can we please drop SMTP already? Just looking at my inbox is vomit-inducing.)
Pardon me for my ignorance, but what are the viable alternatives for SMTP?

Re:whitelist (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23738097)

I have never seen a viable alternative to SMTP, period. And I've never seen a system which is sufficiently open as to replace SMTP, without also allowing spam.

I get at least a few hundred spams a day -- I wouldn't be surprised if it's approaching 500-1000 -- at the email address I use here, which is in public, in plaintext, in a few places. Last time I really checked, I got no false positives -- nowdays, I barely touch the Spam folder, and mostly sort through the Unsure folder.

No more than 10 spams per day, and usually about 5, make it to Unsure. Maybe one or two false positives, occasionally.

And maybe one, once a week or so, makes it to my Inbox.

For the record, I use Bogofilter. That's it, aside from a custom retraining script over IMAP.

And I get no more than one spam a day, at one of my two Gmail addresses -- and Gmail does automatically mark them as spam.

Re:whitelist (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#23743301)

You apparently don't have to handle mail to 'postmaster' or 'admin'. It gets pretty hard to let the real email through.

Re:whitelist (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23743815)

You apparently don't have to handle mail to 'postmaster' or 'admin'.
I pretty much do.

It gets pretty hard to let the real email through.
Any examples of the more tough false positives?

Re:whitelist (1)

Kent Recal (714863) | more than 6 years ago | (#23744463)

I have outlined an open, spam-proof system here: http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=549310&cid=23368790 [slashdot.org]
Technically it is doable, the problem is adoption (chicken vs egg).

On a side note: I get tired of people bragging about the efficiency of their spam-filters.
The situation is not acceptable no matter how good we get at hiding the problem.

Spam constantly wastes a huge amount of technical and mental ressources worldwide
and drastically reduces the usefulness of E-Mail as a whole.

There are possible technical and legislative solutions and I can't stop wondering why nobody with sufficient ressources has taken on the challenge, yet. This is not something an individual or a small group can solve in a realistic timeframe, due to the adoption and/or legal barriers. But a bigger entity with a large audience (google, yahoo, microsoft) could very well make a start and solve the technical part by enabling a SMTP-replacement like the one I outlined in the other post.

Here's why, the Repug reasoning process: (4, Funny)

aeschenkarnos (517917) | more than 6 years ago | (#23736169)

1. Money is good. Money is God's way of showing who he likes, and who he doesn't. (Except for George Soros.)

2. Things that are done for money are good. Corollary: people wouldn't do good things but for being given money. Well, we wouldn't, and we have no problem extrapolating to everybody.

3. Spamming is done for money.

4. Therefore spamming is good.

Re:Here's why, the Repug reasoning process: (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23736337)

I disagree with premis 2. I affirm that there exist things done for money which are not good. I will give examples:

Vendor lock-in agreements.
Frivilous lawsuits.
Identity theft.
Murder.
Marriage.

Re:Here's why, the Repug reasoning process: (4, Funny)

Gregb05 (754217) | more than 6 years ago | (#23736597)

There are people that would say that all but one of those is a good thing.

I mean, what kind of sick monster would wish Marriage on anyone?

Re:Here's why, the Repug reasoning process: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23737379)

The Repugs??? OK they were half responsible. The bill was sponsored in the senate by both Dems and Reps. Please understand that stupidity does not recognize party affiliation boundaries.

Can't render it any more impotent (4, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 6 years ago | (#23736307)

Other "marketers" who used that spam message, not to mention the spamming service that actually provided the email address list, don't need to honor opt-outs

Damn! I guess this means an end to the three wonderful years of relief we've all enjoyed from spam thanks to the oh-so-effective initial rules.


Seriously, this change really doesn't matter, except it will let the FTC claim success due to a massive drop in the number of "valid" complaints against spammers. Whining that it weakens the existing law strikes me as similar to complaining that a serial killer violated a restraining order.

If the government won't stop them... (2, Insightful)

TihSon (1065170) | more than 6 years ago | (#23736365)

I fully expect within the next few years we will see average Joe hacker ... as in a person who likes to fool with technology ... begin a personal and secret computer assault against any business or organization who uses the services of spammers.

In other words, if those in power won't protect me, why should I feel I am doing anything wrong to try and protect myself?

If using the services of a spammer gets your network shot down with any sort of reliable regularity, it seems logical that using them is going to become a harder and harder decision to justify. Make 40G's using the spammer, spend 37G's fixing the network damage that follows.

In the long run, I see this fight as one that cannot go any other way.

Re:If the government won't stop them... (1)

Jor-Al (1298017) | more than 6 years ago | (#23736625)

I fully expect within the next few years we will see average Joe hacker ... as in a person who likes to fool with technology ... begin a personal and secret computer assault against any business or organization who uses the services of spammers.
Why would he want to stop the hackers when he can use his expertise to help them and make tons of money? I'm sure they want a cut of the penis pill sales and Nigerian scam money too!

Re:If the government won't stop them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23736633)

people have been doing that.

it's called a "boycott".

it's actually legal, too.

Re:If the government won't stop them... (1)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23737443)

Make 40G's using the spammer, spend 37G's fixing the network damage that follows.
What does WoW have to do with any of this?

Re:If the government won't stop them... (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#23738153)

I fully expect within the next few years we will see average Joe hacker ... as in a person who likes to fool with technology ... begin a personal and secret computer assault against any business or organization who uses the services of spammers.

Trust me, we tried... first there was blue frog. Then we tried to start the Okopipi group, but there wasn't any support from *ANY* organization. In fact, some guys accused us of making botnets worse. In the end the developers ended up leaving, one by one.

The project simply died.

Re:If the government won't stop them... (1)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 6 years ago | (#23738613)

And then when that happens I'll scrape tech/hacker sites (and google results for tech results) for email addresses to send spam to for my competitors website.

an army of frustrated shortsighted hackers willing to do my evil bidding, sounds fun.

I'm impressed, in a way (5, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#23736409)

It seems that they managed to take a completely toothless act, and make it even less helpful.

I guess it is no wonder that congress has managed to somehow attain an even lower approval rating than our current commander-in-chief, seeing as they managed to squirt out something like this instead of dealing with important national issues.

Re:I'm impressed, in a way (2, Funny)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 6 years ago | (#23736881)

It must have taken a lot of long hard work to make CAN-SPAM even more useless. Ha ha ha, and they said that it couldn't be done!

I don't see why this is all such a problem. (3, Interesting)

Rival (14861) | more than 6 years ago | (#23736449)

This can work. After all, most spammers comply with the rest of the act and are legitimate, honest and upright business owners, right?

I mean, such good people would surely include a visible and operable unsubscribe mechanism, honored quickly and used only for compliance purposes.

And they would provide relevant subject lines, legitimate physical addresses, and adult-content labels on their "value-added, pre-solicited sales invitation messages."

And, of course, never falsify header information, use open relays, or send messages to a harvested email address. Right?

Seriously, what are they really hoping to accomplish with this act? Has it done any significant good?

Re:I don't see why this is all such a problem. (5, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#23736933)

This can work. After all, most spammers comply with the rest of the act and are legitimate, honest and upright business owners, right?

Your being sarcastic, but you are more right than you think.

The CAN SPAM act isn't REALLY directed at the "Get V1-a--g-ri-alis". Those guys don't provide any sort of optout anyway. The CAN-SPAM act really just regulates legitimate newsletters and their behaviour, and this little tweak makes life a little easier for them.

The idea here if I read it right, seems to be that if I send out legitimate newsletter and company-X advertises in it, and then you opt out of my newsletter, under the old can-spam rules if company-X advertises in another newsletter that you receive, you could complain that you opted out, and charge them with spamming... which is really a bit absurd. Its like cancelling your subscription to forbes and then being offended the same ads for Lexus showed up in your subscription to Times!

As you observed the "real" spammers don't give a crap about CANSPAM. This doesn't affect them, because CANSPAM never really affected them. So opening this 'loophole' is primarily about making it easier for legitimate newsletters to operate.

Re:I don't see why this is all such a problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23737909)

The idea here if I read it right, seems to be that if I send out legitimate newsletter and company-X advertises in it, and then you opt out of my newsletter, under the old can-spam rules if company-X advertises in another newsletter that you receive, you could complain that you opted out, and charge them with spamming... which is really a bit absurd.
You may have found the intention, but it is becoming increasingly clear to me that politics is so screwed up because it's done by many people with wide-reaching good intentions and entirely too few people who prevent people with good intentions from making exploitable laws. Politics needs a pen-testing department. Good law making requires that you look at ways in which the law can be abused.

Re:I don't see why this is all such a problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23738719)

That makes sense.

Basically, the act implicitly doesn't apply to spammers. Now, it explicitly doesn't apply to non-spammers.

At least it still applies to all those people who are neither spammers nor non-spammers.

I'll sleep better tonight.

Re:I don't see why this is all such a problem. (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 6 years ago | (#23737059)

"Seriously, what are they really hoping to accomplish with this act? Has it done any significant good?"

i think the whole point, is pandering, positioning, and of course, legislating e-mail the the point where nobody running a legitimate business would think of sending unsolicited e-mails without contracting through a 'professional' spam mail company.

so in other words, it's done nothing but make the spam industry more profitable, while pretending to have improved the situation when it has done nothing of the like.

personally, spamcop, founded in 1998 is the only real anti-spam tool that has Ever worked for me.

some spammers try to fight back against regular spamcop users, I've even been signed up to mailing lists that don't require e-mail verification by spammers because of my use of spamcop. but now that organized crime is involved in spam, they send me Less spam from compromised systems, so that network admins don't get informed of these spamming/scams...

if enough people used spamcop, organized crime would have to think of a way around it, but the types of people who report spam know about internet scams in the first place, so they know which list to put my e-mail address on, based on which e-mails i report to spamcop.

Re:I don't see why this is all such a problem. (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#23743417)

Or using Anne P. Mitchell's 'SuretyMail' services. Only a few hundred dollars a month to keep off the DNS blacklists, and she even helped write CAN-SPAM!

More Proof That Lawmakers Don't Understand Tech (5, Funny)

HardCaliber (1290854) | more than 6 years ago | (#23736551)

Who do these lawmakers use as expert advisors on technical issues? Members of the Geek Squad that worked for Best Buy for a month, before being let go?

Re:More Proof That Lawmakers Don't Understand Tech (1)

Hairy Heron (1296923) | more than 6 years ago | (#23736671)

No, Ted Stevens. He enlightened the other members of Congress that the Internet was not a big truck, but a series of tubes.

Re:More Proof That Lawmakers Don't Understand Tech (2)

Mr. Beatdown (1221940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23737717)

Se. Stevens catches a lot of flack, but that's the wrong part of his idiotic tirade againt commercial use of the Internet.

The part you wanted was "I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?"

We have been describing the Internet as a series of tubes which we connect fat pipes to for a long time, because that analogy makes sense. Sen. Stevens, on the other hand, doesn't.

Re:More Proof That Lawmakers Don't Understand Tech (4, Insightful)

kat_skan (5219) | more than 6 years ago | (#23736909)

Who do these lawmakers use as expert advisors on technical issues?

Anybody who makes a sufficiently large contribution to their campaign, apparently.

Re:More Proof That Lawmakers Don't Understand Tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23737315)

Anybody who makes a sufficiently large contribution to their campaign, apparently.

I've got mod points, but sadly there's no "+1 depressing but true" option. It's funny, every time we get a "candidate so-and-so on tech issues" submission, people come out of the woodwork to defend the status quo of government officials that don't know jack who theoretically turn to "experts" on whatever subject it is they're voting on.

Those people see this CAN-SPAM bullshit as "good".

SPAMMERS WRITE CAN-SPAM ACT (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23736739)

Steve Richter, father and lawyer to "SPAM KING" Scott Richter helped write the CAN-SPAM act. The act is a joke.

Re:SPAMMERS WRITE CAN-SPAM ACT (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 6 years ago | (#23737429)

Links please.

Re:SPAMMERS WRITE CAN-SPAM ACT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23737493)

I know them personally, don't have a link for you.

Re:SPAMMERS WRITE CAN-SPAM ACT (4, Informative)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 6 years ago | (#23737919)

Links please.

Here's a press release [prwebdirect.com] about his affiliation with his son's company. Here is a speaker bio [affiliatesummit.com] of Steven Richter, and here is the Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] confirming the statements in the GP post. While I agree that it is nice to document one's assertions, it is pretty easy to fact check stuff like this.

Links please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23742419)

You are lazy. How about *you* look up a link which you think either supports or refutes the claim, and then post it here to share with the rest of us, rather than wasting electrons, and oxygen, come to think of it.

obviously, you can spam to preserve it. (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 6 years ago | (#23736767)

and make it easier to transport, for a wider audience.

two more changes, and they can change the name of the bill as well, to "MUST spam."

Quicker alternative (1)

^_^x (178540) | more than 6 years ago | (#23736977)

Why not just cut out the middleman and write the spammers directly, giving them my address and asking them to please stop sending me anything, or not to do so in the future if they didn't already have it?

You Have this Completely Wrong (5, Informative)

Talaria (874527) | more than 6 years ago | (#23737187)

You have this completely wrong, although this is *such* a confusing clause, that nobody could blame you.

First let me qualify by saying that I am not only a lawyer in the Internet and anti-spam industry, but I helped author the "affiliate spam" section of CAN-SPAM, to which this clause is a natural extension. We are also fresh from a teleseminar which we provided on this very subject.

The following is an excerpt from our CAN-SPAM compliance page, which is at http://www.isipp.com/can-spam.php [isipp.com] :

In large part, this requirement is an effort to hold affiliate programs responsible for how their affiliates promote them. If the affiliate is honest about who they are, and their "From address", and if they put something in the email about themselves, then the user will be able to unsubscribe from the affiliate's list. But if the affiliate is dishonest, and hides their true identity, then the affiliate program for the product featured in the email (which will be the product being sold under the affiliate program) becomes responsible. In other words, if you are advertised in the affiliate's email, and the affiliate cloaks who they are, you become responsible. By shifting responsiblity for mislabled email to the companies being advertised in the email, there is an incentive for affiliate program managers to more tightly police their affiliates.

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
CEO/President
Institute for Spam and Internet Public Policy
http://www.isipp.com/ [isipp.com]

wow.. what a set up for a Joe Job... (2, Interesting)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 6 years ago | (#23737439)

imagine if I obfuscate all my emails, but always mention an item avaialble from amazon.

Re:wow.. what a set up for a Joe Job... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23738787)

It would hinge on the definition of the word "advertise." Since a court would be the one to define that word (unless it's defined in the act), I highly doubt they (or the legislature) would define "advertising" as you mentioning an item available from amazon.

The law is ridiculous, but not that ridiculous.

Re:You Have this Completely Wrong (3, Insightful)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 6 years ago | (#23737479)

Cool, then can you please make it so spam is an OPT-IN thing instead of OPT-OUT?

As it stands, the majority of people who receive the 'opt-out' spam DO NOT WANT IT, which makes the solution obvious: Change the system to Opt-In. That way, those of us who want something from someone, get it, and those whose spam is unsolicited can be prosecuted.

It is ridiculous that something so problematic to day-to-day functions is treated as OPT-OUT. If you're a policy maker, how do you justify that aspect of the policy?

Re:You Have this Completely Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23737547)

Every page on your website looks like SPAM / MLM promo.

Re:You Have this Completely Wrong (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23738665)

And this apparently ignores one of the more common abuses: an "affiliate" who exists solely to spam. They don't bother cloaking their identity because they only exist for the length of the spam run. Recipients submit opt-out requests, that affiliate puts them on the list. And then promptly evaporates, replaced by a new, different affiliate who can send the same spam for the same product and not have to worry about the opt-outs.

Make it opt-in. Period. This is the era of Google and the like. If I'm at all interested in something I already know all about who offers it, I don't need an unsolicited advertisement for it. And if I'm interested in hearing from your company, I'm quite capable of asking for continued information.

Re:You Have this Completely Wrong (0, Flamebait)

PingXao (153057) | more than 6 years ago | (#23741071)

Fuck you, asshole.

Re:You Have this Completely Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23743161)

So this piece of spammer protecting, "business friendly" legislation is partly _your_ fault? It's nice to see you protecting your lobbying position by helping make the problem worse.

Have you considered working with Microsoft to promote 'open source'?

Re:You Have this Completely Wrong (2, Insightful)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#23743279)

I'm afraid that you have powerful motives in protecting spam, and keepiingi CAN-SPAM useless. We only need to look at your business, 'SuretyMail', as described at http://www.suretymail.com/ [suretymail.com] . It's apparently a 'keep your business spam off the blacklists' set of tools. And most spammers simply don't care. They're quite willing to use throwaway accounts or stolen computer time to send their spam, and they've been doing it since the original Canter&Siegel spam.

You are apparently trying to protect your business from being caught by anti-spam legislation. A robust anti-spam law, such as a simple extension of the junk fax laws to cover spam, would probably destroy your business because your legitimate customers would be forced to use opt-in and not face such blacklists. Most email 'accreditation' schemes such as yours are quickly infested by spammers who use it to pretend legitimacy, whether by buying your services or by simply stealing access from people like your customers. It's the same flaw suffered by various 'micropayment' email schemes, and by Microsoft's SenderID program.

Do you see some flaw in my analysis?

Re:You Have this Completely Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23744423)

"Institute for Spam and Internet Public Policy" is is bunch of former MAPS people pushing SPAM legislation that just by conincidences helps support their for profit businesses "certified" (or whatever they try to call it) email sending [laundered spam (tm)]

Given the ethical track record of MAPS/abovenet, I wouldn't rubberstamp any of their legislative boilerplate.
Check out the rest of the crew, all MAPS/Habeas: http://www.isipp.com/about.php

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., CEO

Anne Mitchell is the CEO and President of the Institute. Mitchell brings with her nearly 10 years of experience in the Internet and email industries, both from the legal and technical side. Mitchell was the Director of Legal and Public Affairs for Mail Abuse Prevention Systems (MAPS), the original anti-spam blacklist. Following her time at MAPS, Mitchell was co-founder and CEO of Habeas, the first of the email reputation services.

In addition to her duties with ISIPP, Mitchell is on the advisory boards of several email and Internet security companies, and is on faculty at Lincoln Law School of San Jose.

Re:You Have this Completely Wrong (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 6 years ago | (#23746667)

I checked your website and the last thing we need are assholes like you providing safe harbour for spammers.

Suddenly it's not spam if they are sending money your way.

I think I speak for most of us when I say "Fuck Off!"

~Dan

lol (1)

hurfy (735314) | more than 6 years ago | (#23737281)

SO if i opt out of the gripe-line newletter the other 393473 infoworld divisions won't be affected......

wait...what was the gripe again?

ok, not really a problem with them but it does make a nice example

There is only one solution: (2, Insightful)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 6 years ago | (#23737367)

Find the spammers, and impale them. DEATH TO SPAMMERS!

With SMTP, there is no solution (1)

dashesy (1294654) | more than 6 years ago | (#23737657)

The whole opt-out procedure is not practical, unless you could check the certificate of the spammer website maybe :) Just click on the opt-out link to assure spammers of an active email address (in the best case).

More pain for my mail server. (1)

Neanderthal Ninny (1153369) | more than 6 years ago | (#23737659)

Oh great, more junk on my mail server. Someone lobbied the heck out of the FTC to allow more people to spam us. We need to start with an clean sheet so no one in the USA is on any mailing list then opt in to any list one may like. Opting out of every mailing list is nearly impossible since most of the mailing list "we signed up for" were either stolen from legitimate companies or companies that gone bye-bye and people have "acquired" these list. Most spammer may put a "opt-out" link or email address but reality are just another "sign up" for more spam. Also most spam come from other countries where FTC has no jurisdiction.
Please FTC, start us with the "clean sheet" method so we can properly opt-in to the mailing we want from legitimate USA companies since already get tons of spam from foreign countries in which you have no control over.

Time for the form again (5, Funny)

Kayamon (926543) | more than 6 years ago | (#23737783)

Your post advocates a

( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

(X) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(X) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
(X) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!

+1, Obvious (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 6 years ago | (#23738099)

Did anyone actually think CAN-SPAM would actually help?

Sell Viagra over the counter (1)

British (51765) | more than 6 years ago | (#23738233)

How about we just allow fucking Viagra to be sold over the counter, without a prescription at any drug store? Pick up a hot dog, slurpee, the latest issue of Low Rider, oh, yeah, and a vial of Viagra.

Shouldn't that at least cut out the Viagra spam?

Re:Sell Viagra over the counter (1)

/dev/trash (182850) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740341)

No. Sheesh, is this what passes for intelligent discourse these days?

What is new about this? (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740085)

I have been subject to this type of business spam for multiple years.

CAN-SPAM is a farce, anyone who believes otherwise either does not have an inbox or thinks the Internet is made of tubes.

Basically meaningless (1)

nerdacus (1161321) | more than 6 years ago | (#23740911)

This change essentially has no effect for me or anyone with half a brain. You should never respond to the "remove me" link in spam. It only serves to tell the sender that a human actually read the message and confirms your existence. This is dealing-with-spam 101.

Terrorists Rejoice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23741169)

There is currently no better or more lucrative way for a terrorist organization to raise funds than by spamming: 1. Billions of dollars spread across a multitude of tiny transactions are moved using this method, 2. The U.S. government hasn't made anti-spamming a priority and is thus far helpless to stop spammers, 3. Nothing puts a smile on a terrorist's face like purchasing a load of weapons using money generated by marketing drugs to the people he hates.

Support a jihad! Buy some V14gar4 today!

We knew this from the beginning (1)

Arrogant-Bastard (141720) | more than 6 years ago | (#23745681)

It is clear to all sufficiently-experienced observers that the CAN-SPAM act was designed and intended to provide a legal pretext for spam. The earnest support and widespread participation of some of the largest and most notorious spammers provided ample evidence of that, even before the precise language was agreed to. Everyone who is actually anti-spam opposed CAN-SPAM and continues to do so -- they recognize that the bill is utterly worthless, e.g., it fails to even use the correct definition of spam. (To wit, "unsolicited bulk email"; all other definitions are put forth by ignorant newbies or spammers; there are no exceptions.) Best practice is to instantly and permanently blacklist anyone or anything citing CAN-SPAM compliance for their actions: they are the enemy.

Re:We knew this from the beginning (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 6 years ago | (#23746903)

I agree,

Its like in the movies.

Cop: You need to come with us, we have some questions we would like to ask you.

Asshat: I think, I need a lawyer first.

Spamassassin configured properly kicks CASPAMS ass (1)

imnotbutyouare (874216) | more than 6 years ago | (#23745769)

I've spent a lot of time training SpamAssassin and exim with RBLDNS lists of known spammers. And feeding spamassassin with corpuses of spam on a regular basis. I've reduced the spam incoming to peoples boxes from 1000's to 18 per day throught the whole organisation. The boss hasn't given em a promotion yet but I deserve one for being the SPAMINATOR!! SO CAN-SPAM VERSUS THE SPAMINATOR, lets get ready to ruuuuuummmmmbbbbblllllleeeeee!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?