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!

Strict New Anti-Spam Regulations In Canada

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the spam-not-involving-hockey-is-verboten dept.

Canada 101

An anonymous reader writes "David Reese provides an interesting analysis of just how far Canada's new anti-spam legislation goes, and its implications for business. This may provide a valuable template for citizens of other countries, and may also encourage Canadians to prepare for the inevitable push-back from spammers. It is not clear from this analysis whether the legislation would affect telemarketing, but even if it does not it provides a useful precedent for future regulation in that area."

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

Opt-in? Finally! Wish I was Canadian. (3, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44311065)

About time, these companies that deem you to want to know about their "special offers" are a horrible blight on people who want relevant information. Too bad the U.S. government hates non-corporation people.

Re:Opt-in? Finally! Wish I was Canadian. (2)

JackieBrown (987087) | about a year ago | (#44311147)

About time, these companies that deem you to want to know about their "special offers" are a horrible blight on people who want relevant information. Too bad the U.S. government hates non-corporation people.

Or the U.S. government doesn't want to put the final nail in the U.S. Post Office's coffin.

Re:Opt-in? Finally! Wish I was Canadian. (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44311173)

No, I'm pretty sure there's a faction that has been actively trying to do exactly that for decades, irrespective of the existence of the internet.

Re:Opt-in? Finally! Wish I was Canadian. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311209)

Same holds for your post

Re:Opt-in? Finally! Wish I was Canadian. (1)

suutar (1860506) | about a year ago | (#44311567)

I would think opt-in would help the post office, by pushing unsolicited mail back from email to paper. Or were you assuming an opt-in approach to the post office as well?

Try unsubscribing (3, Informative)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about a year ago | (#44311281)

I used to just delete spam but one day I went through a whole bunch of them and clicked on unsubscribe. The amount of spam went down to almost nothing. Totally worth the 15 min of effort. Legitimate companies (who make up most of the spam I get these days) honor unsubscribe requests, the illegitimate ones will not care about any anti-spam laws anyway.

Re:Try unsubscribing (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44311305)

It's still an unnecessary hassle to reduce the noise levels. Nobody asked for it.

Re:Try unsubscribing (3, Insightful)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year ago | (#44311553)

Then filter out any email with the word "unsubscribe" and whitelist the stuff you do want.

In real life, you still have to take out the garbage and recycling.

Re:Try unsubscribing (2)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about a year ago | (#44311763)

The difference is nobody sends you unwanted garbage bags

Re:Try unsubscribing (1)

aclarke (307017) | about a year ago | (#44313529)

If only that was true. I'm mysified how it's legal (in Canada) for people to dump piles advertising printed on dead trees on my driveway several times a week. Why is there no opt-out of that, or better yet, opt-in?

Re:Try unsubscribing (1)

dryeo (100693) | about a year ago | (#44314407)

Put a sign up, "No Papers Delivered Here". Works for some people I know with the community papers full of flyers in the Fraser Valley.

Re:Try unsubscribing (1)

dimeglio (456244) | about a year ago | (#44335199)

Those dead trees, when exploited reasonably like they are in Canada, are a renewable resource and generate employment. They are also very useful when starting a fireplace fires.

Re:Try unsubscribing (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44314519)

In real life, you still have to take out the garbage and recycling.

But in digital life, computers do that for me.

Why would I spend one minute evaluating spam, when Google or Spam Assassin can do it for me?

Re:Try unsubscribing (1)

geezer nerd (1041858) | about a year ago | (#44315073)

I have done exactly that. I have pretty much eliminated all the spam which had an "unsubscribe" link. I am left with a fair amount of traffic that does not have an "unsubscribe" link in the body of the message. The from addresses seem to morph daily, so setting a "whitelist" or "blacklist" is kind of hard. I quickly peruse my spam folder every day and take out the messages that are not spam, then empty the folder once a day. Now what is bothering me is the messages that get into the spam folder which are not spam. I use Thunderbird, and with POP3 mail I used its spam-detection capability and I could tell it that a piece of mail was "not junk". Now, I get mail via Google Apps using IMAP protocol and Google does the spam detection and the ability to say "not junk" has disappeared in Thunderbird. Does Google Mail have a "whitelist" capability? I did a little bit of searching for an answer, but did not find such a capability.

Be careful with unsubscribe links! (4, Insightful)

Khopesh (112447) | about a year ago | (#44311591)

Hi. I'm in the anti-spam business. You got lucky.

A lot of spammers use fake unsubscribe links as a way of verifying your address and the fact that you read the message. Some questionable businesses have verification elements to their unsubscribe links that will note the fact that you visited the site but then due to a bug fail to process your unsubscribe attempt (thus netting the same effect).

I will sometimes unsubscribe from things, but that's because I want to see how successful it was (and I can deal with the trouble caused by attracting more spam). I do not suggest this for others. Use sites like myWOT [mywot.com] to research the link before trusting it enough to follow it and perform the request. Use sites like SpamCop [spamcop.net] and KnujOn [knujon.com] (and, if you're in France, Signal Spam [signal-spam.fr] , which has legal enforcement power) to report anything else as spam. All of those reporting agencies are tied to actual enforcement (in some way; KnujOn busts registrars, SpamCop informs network operators (and builds its blocklist), Signal Spam prosecutes if in France).

Wth that I suggest this & why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44314595)

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=44310431 [slashdot.org]

* 100% Free & it works on known current spammers/phishers as it does on:

---

A.) DNS outages see above ( /. today Network Solutions hosted dns down):

B.) DNS abusing fastflux + dynDNS botnets in link above

C.) Vs. known current malicious code serving servers/exploited sites/adbanners/hosts-domains/malware etc.

D.) Better reliability vs. redirects/other online dns related attacks + downed dns (link above)

E.) More speed vs remote dns servers via a native locally cached 4 speed in RAM hosts file @ Ring 0/RPL 0/kernelmode operation - fastest there is via tcpip.sys + local kernelmode diskcaching subsystems vs. Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode based solutions such as AdBlock or Ghostery layered in over already slower usermode webbrowsers slowing 'em down more (adblock + ghostery = advertiser paid/owned & not fully effective by default "foxes guarding a henhouse" imo)

F.) Better anonymity (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL you don't like).

---

& more - from a single file you already have...

* Less added moving parts = my doing the same job better = "doth good engineering make" via less complexity + intelligently working w\ what you've got natively is what it produces.!

(Vs. more layered on slowing things up = MORE messaging/memory/ i-o + processing added (in a slower privelege level of operations also))

This uses native drivers nature that's extensively refined for 44++ yrs. tcpip.sys native resolver & diskcache (both kerrnelmode subsystems - fastest possible software) locally doing a job better + versatile & ubiquitous vs. competing 'solutions', & via a custom hosts file filter 4 better speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

APK

P.S.=> "The Premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature, & reprogram it to make it work for the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen, 'I AM LEGEND'...

... apk

Re:Wth that I suggest this & why (1)

Khopesh (112447) | about a year ago | (#44318811)

ooh, the nutorious APK spammer, this time spamming us about anti-spam. hi. would you like me to rip you to shreds?

  • 1. This would need to be run on your MX record (which likely isn't Windows ...)
  • 2. SMTP does not use DNS. You get a connection from a spammer, it dumps email content to you.
  • 3. DNS lookups used by anti-spam don't actually resolve domains in links, they use third-party URIBLs.
  • 4. If you're suggesting that some anti-spam engineer (hi) design a mechanism to use your hosts file as a URIBL, you're suddently competing with far larger indices that update every few seconds. Your flat hosts file updates ... sorry, I don't see any updating capability on your ad site. The last engine update was 44 days ago.
  • 5. Even URIBLs only have visibility into domains that have already been spammed, not new ones.
  • 6. There is such a thing as a hosts file that is too big [duckduckgo.com] , making me dubious of how scalable APK really is at doing the next-to-nothing that it does.
  • 7. You are proud of a program that merely manages a text file that consumes 37MB of memory? Why does your program even need to run after installation? It doesn't appear to get updates.
  • 8. You spammed us to advertise your software. Great strategy.

You've made yourself out as a fool... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44320393)

2nd: mx mail data isn't handled by hosts files (I never said it was): My program's for end users & blocks known malicious spammers/phishers/sites-servers-hosts-domains known to be malscripted or serving malware with data from 12 reputable sources in the security community. If you can't touch links the idiots send in email (since they're known & blocked off via custom hosts files)? Connections you speak of = impossible since "What you can't touch, can't hurt you". A hosts file that's "too big" 4 Windows native faulty with larger hosts files dns clientside cache service? You cut the dns clientside cache service (saving cpu cycles, ram, & other forms of I/O it used). Local kernelmode diskcache subsystem will cache hosts! 37mb's a partial set only! You show you don't even understand how big the data is with custom hosts out there. You're also not very observant: My program can automatically update custom hosts file data it gathers every 12 hours (see screenshot). In the end you look quite stupid here. You did it to yourself (it's "notorious", not how you misspelled it).

APK

P.S.=> I love it when you amateurs like you here *try* to "condescend to me" when 9/10ths haven't even begun to achieve what I've done in the art & science of computing since 1994 professionally to decent acclaim a few times (dozen or so) while you were most likely still in DIAPERS & I have something to show for myself that works and does exactly what I state it does, & it's far from the "most complex" thing I've ever written but it does "do the job" & with what I state it does on its download page, guaranteed! It's only 1 of around 40 apps I've done & put online since 1996 or so that've done well in respected computing trade publications, technical show contests (like MS-TechEd 2000-2002 where some of my work was a 2 yrs. in a row finalist in the hardest category there "SQLServer Performance Enhancement"). How about you by comparison, big talker?... apk

Re:You've made yourself out as a fool... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44324117)

(moved to AC to match apk's threshold -khopesh)

You're okay having all that spam delivered to your inbox? You certainly seem to have the time to read through it all.

Okay, you update every twelve hours; that's not impressive. Phishing campaigns typically go live and are even taken down in the span of just a few hours (often minutes). URIBLs update continuously (since they're server side). If you're pushing this angle, why not host a URIBL, write a simple local caching DNS server, and configure a proxy to handle the gatekeeping?

In comparison, I'm a lead developer on the most widely deployed anti-spam software in the world.

The big databases I deal with require distributed clusters to host and can't be rotated through caches on an end-user system.

You are right though, it was foolish of me to feed a troll.

Thought you'd "rip me apart" like you said? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44324495)

Didn't go that way here for you did it http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44320393 [slashdot.org] (prove me wrong with technical facts, not your weak failed attempts @ ad hominem attacks thinly veiled & under ac posts now too, lol). You were so techincally WRONG on a great many points, I merely corrected you. Prove me wrong. Sorry, but you did end up sounding stupid sounding off on something you have no idea on from your own mistakes evidencing it. I only stated facts he nor yourself, can disprove. Is that you posting ac now "Sword"/"Blade"? On your attempt to bust on my app: Hey - That's how often I have it do it based on updates I've seen over the past 15++ yrs. from various reputable sources I've seen: That's their average rate overall over 15 total sources. However, it works, it's VERY ACCURATE, & yes it works also vs. spam/phish and a HELL OF A LOT MORE, too... So again - I'll ask you, Mr. Critic: Where yours? Solely yours YOURS?? Zero! Don't think so. Mine even speeds you up. Does yours?? Doubt it. If anything it adds weight/complexity using bayesian filters built on regexp I'd guess, lol... cat vs. mouse forever game too. Bottom-Line though: I can back everything I state with facts via the result of the program, hosts, gives you in added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent - it's all I need. Sometimes, tunes for example, are say, Pink Floyd (complex), other times, they're AC/DC (less complex) - both good. That's all I can say about your ac rib on my program.
Where's yours? Solely, yours, that is - not built with a team. That's all... lol! The program's NOT the good part of my app - the resulting custom hosts file, is. On a lot of levels. I can say I am President Obama too, Mr. totally ac : I nearly guarantee I could walk into your place of employ, especially in DB work of ANY KIND on ANY LEVEL from dev to DBA & do the same (I've worked in the Fortune 100-500 before on large enterprise class systems around db engines of various kinds on various platforms)... so "been there done that", & I wager while you were still in diapers (considering your 'pure ac masked man' post)...

APK

P.S.=> Don't attempt to condescend to me or make me look like the "bad guy" here: That fool Khoresh (whatever) said he was going to rip me apart - too bad it went otherwise (prove me wrong with facts, not ad hominem attacks & alleged status you have on the job).... apk

Re:Thought you'd "rip me apart" like you said? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44324849)

Does your product even filter spam? How? When a virus is delivered via email, your tool does nothing. When an IP link is clicked, your tool does nothing. Against a 419er's solicitations, your tool does nothing. When faced with a fresh malware link, your db may be up to 12h out of date and lack an entry for it.

You claim your product is accurate. Prove it. Spamassassin is free and open, you can look at the source [apache.org] . Its efficacy is demonstrated daily [spamassassin.org] . There are plenty of third party reports over the last 10+ years demonstrating its utility. SA has millions of users and hundreds (at least) of contributers. How about your tool?

You claim your product is fast. Perhaps it is leaner than Spamassassin (with SA's Bayesian filters and regular expressions, as you note, it almost certainly is), but Spamassassin runs on servers. It consumes zero disk, zero memory, and zero CPU on user systems.

I put my Spamassassin developer status on my resume. Sure, I'm not the sole dev of SA, but that's a feature. I can work on (and lead) a team. If I go away, the project will continue without me. Do you put APK Hosts File Engine on your resume? Whatever would people think when they search for it? ... oh, never mind, a quick search [jeremyreimer.com] yields your full name attached to these shenanigans anyway. How then could my Fortune 100 employer hire you into any team?

Oh, and so you know it's "me" to the same level of clarity as I have for you,
Khopesh

Hosts can block ANY domain name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44326627)

Does it 'filter' spam? It blocks access to links posted in phish/spam mails that lead to malicious exploits. My tool doesn't let you get to place they try lead you to. IP Addresses are BY FAR less used because of "FastFlux" &/or "Dynamic DNS" based botnets (by far, like 99% to 1% since IP addressed threats are EASILY KILLED whereas fastflux or dynDNS based threats can "live again" & be reincarnated easily due to the nature of DNS they exploit). I don't have to claim anything other than the truth & it's there on spam above (and far more that your product doesn't even TOUCH). My program's data is always as up to date as a dozen sources for custom hosts file data make it, every day. I don't NEED resumes anymore really - I am no longer a fulltime dev (was from 1994-2009) & then went part time since I run a business as well of my own. Your programs solely for spam filtering. Mine does it to an extent, but it also blocks out a lot more threats than just spam, it speeds you up 1 of 2 ways (hardcodes & adblocking), makes you more reliable (vs. redirect poisoned or downed DNS), & even more anonymous to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + gets you around DNSBL's you may not like).

APK

P.S.=> Mine can do spam/phish, but it does a LOT MORE that yours? Can't even BEGIN to touch... apk

that's a "no" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329215)

Your product does not block spam and will not help with inbox volume. It will not help protect against non-domain-based payloads in the slightest.

You have failed to provide evidence that your product can compete with URIBLs in any way other than anonymity (also, can you name an end-user product that doesn't let you disable "DNSBL's you may not like?").

APK Hosts File's 12 hour updates are way too slow to handle most phish or malware (or snowshoe, or fast-flux) links. If you dispute that, you'll have to back your argument. Demonstrate your effectiveness in some way.

Gave up your illogical ad hominem attacks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330211)

Do blocks of bad links in email protect you vs. spam/phish? Yes! That's the most important part vs exploit. It's free - is your companies'? I never say mine cleans inboxes: It removes a threat though! The most important part. Fact: My app does more by far vs. your companies' too, clientside (actually compliments yours) by a mile (from "little ole' me" only) in terms of gaining users added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity & less moving parts than other solutions do, period! QUESTION: How many of the things my app lists it does which nobody can disprove, does yours do? ANSWER = ~ not even 1/16th! I was also right as rain you don't have squat to show for yourself that you did yourself whereas by way of comparison? I have them by the score & as far back as when you were in dapers boy - despite your failed illogical attempts @ ad hominem attacks on myself here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44328987 [slashdot.org] on me (that I turned aside with FACTS!).

Evidence? Please - If you can't touch a malicious link? You can't be hurt by it which is what my app's resultfile yields for users...lol, common-sense is all you need here! You can manually do more than the automated updates every 12 hours you know (or I could alter the rate but its optimal for 12 custom hosts data sites already).

My app stops spam & other online threats (yours doesn't on the latter & doesn't completely stop the former) no questions asked, in any malicious links they use. Again: That's the important part - eliminating the malicious threat. Bottom-line: My free app does more than your companies' does by far! Offering better speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity (and yes, spam/phish protection too) & from a single fellow using native parts fast as possible in kernelmode already present in the OS itself: Fact/period/no questions asked. It compliments your companies' app clientside extremely efficiently via its results file operating in the fastest mode possible: Kernelmode. Is yours free too?

APK

P.S.=> You fail despite stating you'd "rip me apart" & you blew it on tech here - better hope I don't apply at your company: I'd take your job from you, based on your poor tech fact performance here:

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44320393 [slashdot.org]

You FAIL in weak attempts @ ad hominem attacks that I easily dusted on Jeremy Reimer the troll in the 1st link above + on tech facts all thru this debate vs. yourself... lol, it was "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'"... apk

Re:Gave up your illogical ad hominem attacks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44333415)

It's free - is your companies'?

SpamAssassin is free [wikipedia.org] and therefore open source. APK Host File is merely a free download whose methodologies can't be fully examined. I sent you a link to exact measurements of SA's effectiveness. How about yours? You have only provided weak anecdotal evidence suggesting that the premise could work in certain instances but providing no indication that your data is comprehensive.

This is TOO easy: You FAIL again... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44333507)

WTF? Whose methodologies can't be fully examined?? QUESTION:

If a fire was burning in a room, and I stopped you from entering it, would you be harmed by it???

Answer that!

However - you already DID, here:

"Yes, you theoretically block links from being visited once a spam has been read. How effectively? How promptly?" - http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44329541 [slashdot.org]

How promptly? LOCALLY FAST vs. remote stuff like you have is how fast... lol, right outta RAM, kernelmode drivers processing is how fast - fast as it gets. You? Don't.

You FAIL, just on common-sense a CHILD could understand... lol, give up already! You're posting as ac too admittedly Khopesh - > http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44324117 [slashdot.org] Why? Hell, easy to explain that too:

You KNOW you fucked up calling me a spammer off the bat here - and then you fucked up on tech stuff all over the place too... rookie.

(Obvious loud mouthed arrogant little rookie... lol! That's right: I am NOT pulling any punches with you anymore - not after your starting up with me in your 1st reply to me.

* Who am I fooling - you won't even answer my other questions or confront my other points, since they UTTERLY FLOORED YOU all thru this debate exchange, easily!

APK

P.S.=> You DID admit the above already though, that if you can't touch the fire, you can't be burned (which IS exactly what hosts block entries allow vs. not only spam/phishing, all your program does essentially, but also ALL KINDS of OTHER THREATS ONLINE + it speeds you up too 2 ways, & adds reliability + anonymity as well)...

... apk

Man - Got to BLOW YOU AWAY again... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44334349)

"SpamAssassin is free and therefore open source. APK Host File is merely a free download whose methodologies can't be fully examined." - by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 19, 2013 @07:01PM (#44333415)

Write MalwareBytes' hpHosts Mr. Steven Burn: services@it-mate.co.uk New News/NewsFlash/Clue - He's seen my sourcecode, & yes, is a respected part of the security community for more than a decade++ now! I've had the security community "vet" & test my stuff - had to: They are "super-paranoid" about apps, & ought to be - they get sent them by malware makers quite a lot as well as getting DDoS'd (why hpHosts is on AMAZON AWS now in fact). You fail - quit while you're behind, before you "bury yourself" even more, rookie noob. He's also seen me dispute & disprove the likes of McAfee, Norton/Symantec, Comodo, ArcaVir/ArcaBit, Trend Micro, & ClamAV on false positives (and others per jotti & VirusTotal online scanners) on this app also - you don't *want* to *try* to "take me on" in technicals boy... I'll floor you & have many times already here. Done the same to folks @ Microsoft too (Dr. Mark Russinovich per the links earlier I showed you, & also the former VP of MS "Windows Client Performance Division" Richard Russell who posts here as FOREDECKER - he conceded flaws I noted in the IP stack regarding hosts, albeit only eventually once facts floored him too that I discovered MS messed up on badly!).

APK

P.S.=> Based on your poor tech results here especially? Ok - I'll tell you another thing about you "Open sores" rookies from this debate - you're just that: Noobz & Rookies, or were YOU "technically accurate" here -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44320393 Right off the bat? Answer = hell no & yes, your 1st post used illogical off-topic ad homiinem failed attack attempts on myself, calling ME a "spammer"

... apk

More failing adhominem attacks? Ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44328987)

Jeremy Reimer/arstechnica caught impersonating me "Anyway the "APK" registered here is just an affectionate clone of the original. In fact I prefer him to the original." - Jeremy Reimer - March 25, 2005

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22OSY%22+and+%22affectionate+clone%22+and+%22Reimer%22&btnG=Search [google.com]

& here (Windows IT Pro magazine forums):

http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/internals-and-architecture/the-memory-optimization-hoax#feedbackAnchor [windowsitpro.com]

On his forums admitted it @ Windows IT Pro (on his forums before he was removed from them by his hosting provider to another hosting provider & started again + he was caught spamming/harassing me, making edited photos of me & more by his ISP Shaw Canada, & his hosting provider + Jay Little kicked their sites off (CrystalTech.com). Think arstechnica doesn't pull that kind of crap using sockpuppets to do it?
Knocked the SNOT outta his pal Jay Little (on Exchange Servers which he claimed to be "expert" on,lol, being unfrozen/sped up by memopttech in article former co-worker of mine Dr. Mark Russinovich wrote (whom I shot down easily w/ MS' own documentation)) + Ramdisks too! Same vs. a doctoral candidate pal of his too who posts here as "StarKruzr" on /. too whom I caught lying on who he was & he agreed w/ 99% of what I wrote. Reimer's a known troll online who can't even begin to understand this tech @ the level. He brought his "henchmen"? Got nuked like you here! Neither could "the good doctor" Mr. Russinovich & I challenged him repeatedly directly (& I've corrected HIS work too pagedefrag.exe which he thanked me for too).

Worst of all you defeat yourself attempting to "knock me" via failing illogical off-topic ad hominem attack attempts!

Above all else:

When you've got successful commercial software to YOUR NAME/CREDIT as I do from decades ago while you were still in diapers that YOU wrote YOURSELF?

Then, you can talk down to me or as a PEER, but not until then!

Lastly - Iirc, here you asked WHY I'd run my app resident all the time?? Protection of the hosts file via readonly protection applied every 1/2 second is why. Impossible to undo while it runs. Locked: Fact: I am doing FAR MORE WITH LESS (good engineering) vs. layering on MORE complexity like you do, but I do roughly the same job on spam you do protecting users (complimenting apps like yours in fact clientside), plus a hell of a lot more, your more "moving parts" solution can't even BEGIN to offer in increased speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity.

(Check SuperSpeed.com's Eric Dickman on MS Tech Ed 2000-2002 finalist placement 2 yrs. in a row hardest category "SQLServer Performance Enhancement" w/ techniques 4 caching & SSD usage that only now are being "stumbled upon" in industrial use by youngsters like you @ exchange server, terminal server, + db server level decades later)

APK

P.S.=> "Nobody rules these streets at night but me: NOBODY: The Atomic PunK" - Van Halen

Re:More failing adhominem attacks? Ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329541)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

ad hominem [ad hom-uh-nuhm -nem, ahd]
adjective

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Your attacks are almost purely ad hominem while few if any of anybody's responses to you are ad hominem.

Impersonating an anonymous coward? Who cares? There are two people following this drivel thread this deep. How is discussing that on topic or intellectual?

How is discussing your age and credentials (which have not been challenged) relevant? How is proclaiming (with no evidence or inkling) that I was in diapers at any point in your illustrious career not an ad hominem attack? How does an award you won for a different product 11 years ago help your case?

Show me one relevant (and ideally third party) piece of data backing any of your claims relevant to spam. Yes, you theoretically block links from being visited once a spam has been read. How effectively? How promptly? How is this request an ad hominem attack?

Khopesh 1st post to me calls me spammer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44332141)

= ad-hominem/"to-the-man" illogical off topic attack of myself!

Don't feed me crap on who started what here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44318811 [slashdot.org] & the poor means used on HIS part!

( & a failed 1 at that as I also utterly totalled the rest of his off topic illogical FAILING ad hominem attacks b.s. easily with concrete, verifiable & undeniable evidence here too http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44328987 [slashdot.org] & his BLATANTLY ERRONEOUS "so-called 'tech points'" in the rest of my replies - easily!)

Fact: The VERY SECOND you young rookies resort to that, "to-the-man" failed ad hominem attacks of MYSELF, vs. my points? Is the very second I KNOW I have you "on the ropes" failing badly on YOUR end!

---

LMAO 1 relevant point vs. spam? Easy: Block the malicious links in spam/phish mails @ hosts level?? You're protected - common sense, & there you are.

My app does that using kernelmode/ring 0/rpl 0 using roughly 44 & 23 yr. proven & refined kernelmode subsystems to do it (tcpip.sys & diskcaching).

Bottom-line of HOW & WHY my app works: A simple principle, per my earlier quote of the film character in my 1st reply to Khopesh (which he attacked me ad hominem style on in reply - illogical, off topic, and with TONS OF TECHNICAL ERRORS ON HIS PART TOO):

"The Premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature, & reprogram it to make it work for the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen, 'I AM LEGEND'...

I.E.-> "You can't get burned if you don't go into the kitchen"

---

Credentials? Khopesh spewed HIS (oddly as ac + FAR INFERIOR TO MY OWN), but "that's ok", right??

Wrong -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44324117 [slashdot.org] by AC POST too no less (gosh I wonder WHY he did that by AC admittedly? He was LOSING BAD is why, lol, & that's his attempt @ hiding it!).

* Thank-You for YET another "notch on my belt" vs. young ROOKIE level wannabes on /.!

---

Lastly: What makes me laugh MOST?

The FACT that My app does MORE than his does by FAR on far more levels for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity even & it's free + works just as I state it does, effectively & VERY efficiently (best part) - even complimenting ones like his, clientside!

(Additional thanks - For making me look good, & yourself? LMAO - "not so good' -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44331237 [slashdot.org] )

APK

P.S.=> Your end result? You grabbed a "Cyberian Tiger" by the tail, & lost - badly, & on many accounts! Shouldn't have opened your mouth saying "you'd rip me apart" (when I did that to you, repeatedly & especially on TECH areas (or, doesn't the last link consolidating your FAILS prove that much? Yes, it does...)):

Face facts boy - "Nobody rules these streets at night but me: NOBODY - The Atomic PunK" - Van Halen

APK, what is your argument? (1)

Khopesh (112447) | about a year ago | (#44333585)

What on-topic points have you made? What citations of efficacy? You can't just say "you're protected" and leave it at that. That's no argument.

I understand how hosts files work. You appear to have a clever system to work around the size limits and make it work efficiently. Great. How performant is your data against live threats? What's your miss rate? How does it compare to URIBLs? How do you deal with non-link threats delivered via email (e.g. 419, attached virus)?

Ah, he's posting NOT AC now, lol! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44334605)

Are you stupid? Again - If a bad link is blocked, can it harm you?? No. That's as effective vs. spam/phish as needed vs. their payload threat links... this compliments serverside apps like yours, albeit clientside, by the way!

In fact - I was going to STATE THAT last part, until you called me "spammer" (I prove WHO was doing those on /. too) - that's RIGHT when you "grabbed the 'Cyberian Tiger' by the tail, me, & you got MAULED for it on technical levels, but moreso via your sockpuppet ac posts and tech fails.

The rest you did for me starting here technically -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44320393

Calling me a "spammer" too http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44318811 ? You're nothing but an ignorant little rookie noob (especially after that 1st link above where you don't show you know much @ all).

APK

P.S.=> Face facts: Your program? It doesn't do a FRACTION of what mine does for folks in added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity - period... Thus, your program is clearly on those grounds, INFERIOR + not as versatile & ubiquitous... apk

Re:Be careful with unsubscribe links! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44314803)

If you're using SpamCop you might have noticed that more and more ISPs just bounce such reports... Contacting such ISPs via Facebook just gets you list washed (in my experience). The real problem, IMO, are the ISPs that just care more about paying customers than a whining geek bitching about spam.

Reporting to SpamCop does help (1)

Khopesh (112447) | about a year ago | (#44318569)

If you're using SpamCop you might have noticed that more and more ISPs just bounce such reports... Contacting such ISPs via Facebook just gets you list washed (in my experience). The real problem, IMO, are the ISPs that just care more about paying customers than a whining geek bitching about spam.

I don't dispute any of that. SpamCop does not listwash and does not condone listwashing. (I can't speak for Facebook, but they do have a good presence at the last remaining anti-spam conference and they do care.) SpamCop is not really an enforcement mechanism because it has no legal weight. Responsible network admins will be notified, those who ignore or otherwise don't play fair won't. That's merely the first pass; there's also the blocklist. Not perfect, but at least there can be some repercussion (so keep on reporting! Even if it seems like it's not doing anything, we may just not be getting critical mass for action, which can change over time).

We're basically set up to plug right into a legal body for real enforcement. Hint hint.

Khopesh"SPANKED" 4x in a row, lol... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44331237)

Repeatedly Here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44320393 [slashdot.org] , here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44324495 [slashdot.org] & here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44326627 [slashdot.org] lastly here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44328987 [slashdot.org]

* Learn to RESPECT your elders & BETTERS, boy! By NOT doing so? You've been "shown up" badly by "yours truly", bigtime, no denying it. So much for your +5 rating - it's going to attract others to see just how you operate, and your poor results! I love it, you had it coming for how you started out on me calling me a 'spammer'!

Especially since I was completely correct on tons of tech points correcting YOUR blatant tech MISTAKES in the links above, despite your "rip me apart" comment b.s.you burnt yourself on in those links above & I did things you've not managed while you were STILL IN DIAPERS in the art & science of computing! Very DUMB of you there, not realizing you may have run into someone that's done more, & has more experience (decades of it in computing since 1982 & 1994 professionally on nearly every level possible).

Fact: I also knew I was right that you have NO independent efforts of your own that did any good (proving you must not be that good essentially) as mine have repeatedly for decades (ontop of professional development duties on the job before I got into real estate) in commercially sold successful server & workstation wares, shareware/freeware, & technical trade show competitions etc./et al!.

Bottom-line: Your failed illogical attempts @ ad hominem attack (last link above)?

Useless!

Especially after the results in the links above before thelast one, & your technical mistakes in them!

(Young fools - you're ALL the same, every single time you "try" me, you fail, badly. Lots of "talk" too, but yet no personal accomplishments on their own in this field that did well, & failing illogical ad hominem attacks on me I dusted easily using facts (documented, verifiable, & undeniable), but NOTHING you've done personally by yourself seems to have made "good waves" in the art & science of computing (whereas I have many times by way of comparison)).

Not only was the last link above a failing illogical ad hominem attack attempt on me personally, BUT, Your 1st post to me called me a spammer too - do you even KNOW who got caught impersonating me here on /. on THAT account? Look no farther than another "corporate stooge" technically weak fool named Jeremiah Cornelius -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3934725&cid=44187445 [slashdot.org] (caught in his lies too, lol).

APK

P.S.=> Your result? You grabbed a "Cyberian Tiger" by the tail, & lost - badly, & on many accounts! Shouldn't have opened your mouth saying "you'd rip me apart" (when I did that to you, repeatedly & especially on TECH areas (or, don't those links above prove that much? Yes, they do...)):

Face facts boy - "Nobody rules these streets at night but me: NOBODY - The Atomic PunK" - Van Halen

Either argue or give up. No more attacks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44333691)

Now you're just recycling arguments and renewing your own ad hominem attacks while complaining about hominem attacks.

Please demonstrate how your product measures up against its perceived competition (pros and cons). Demonstrate how your product protects against non-link payloads (we're talking about spam, after all). Demonstrate how your product updates quickly enough to handle fast-flux, phish, or malware. Demonstrate how your data allows your product to catch what others miss.

Certainly you are not arguing that your product contains every possible "bad" domain that its users might click on (even the ones registered in the last few hours), so you must have some way of measuring what your coverage is and how it compares to URIBLs in a live spam feed?

This will be my last post to this thread unless you start talking coherently and on-topic, without further attacks or recitations of yesteryear. No unnecessary all-caps or bold, no movie quotes, no distractions. Answer my challenges, repeated for you earlier in this comment.

Keep posting ac to "defend yourself" Khopesh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44334555)

Keep making me laugh: Especially after this -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44320393 which dusted you right off the bat on your initial reply full of tech screwups... you have the NERVE to call yourself a computing pro after that? Please... lol!

Recycling arguments? You mean the fact I am stating things you CAN'T DISPROVE that favor my app vs. yours & that show my app does more? That repeatedly SHOW YOUR TECH SCREWUPS TOO?? Absolutely. Yes, I am doing that, rubbing it in & stressing it, since that all shows you're ROOKIE/NOOB @ best/most.

* :)

Anyone is FREE to read this entire exchange & decide "what is what" & anyone sane + computer saavy is NOT going to "go your way", no way, no how.

Are YOU stating you have EVERY POSSIBLE SPAM blocked? You're really "reaching now" & don't realize I can send that RIGHT BACK AT YA... lol, too easy.

Attacks?? Who called WHO a "spammer" you failed idiot that's posting as ac now, hmmm? See here -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44318811

You're a fool: One that can't accept I handed you your ASS on a plate easily + wrote a simple app that does FAR MORE THAN YOURS DOES for users, period...

(Far more on a plethora of useful levels in more security, speed, reliability, & anonymity (and fights spam/phish too like yours serverside,albeit clientside - "bonus!")).

APK

P.S.=> Face facts: Your program? It doesn't do a FRACTION of what mine does for folks in added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity - period... Thus, your program is clearly on those grounds, INFERIOR + not as versatile & ubiquitous... apk

Re:Try unsubscribing (2)

Tom (822) | about a year ago | (#44312957)

Legitimate companies don't send you crap that you didn't sign up for.

I unsubscribe from stuff when I actually did want it once, or if I registered somewhere and probably forgot to uncheck the "please fill my inbox with crap" box.

But everything that is actually unsolicited commercial email will very, very, likely not come from a legitimate company, because those wouldn't subscribe you to anything without your knowledge in the first place.

What you do when you click on that link is considerably raising the value of the address they can then sell to others, because they have now verified that not only is it a valid address, it also belongs to someone who actually reads the shit and apparently has bad spam filters.

Congratulations, you just made a spammer a couple bucks.

Re:Try unsubscribing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44313897)

I used to just delete spam but one day I went through a whole bunch of them and clicked on unsubscribe. The amount of spam went down to almost nothing. Totally worth the 15 min of effort. Legitimate companies (who make up most of the spam I get these days) honor unsubscribe requests, the illegitimate ones will not care about any anti-spam laws anyway.

Is this genuine spam or is it something you once agreed to receive e-mails from (either intentionally or not) that you no longer are interested in receiving? Most things that end up in my spam folder are obviously not legit and certainly not requested. I would never click ANYTHING in those e-mails.

Re:Try unsubscribing (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44314515)

I used to just delete spam but one day I went through a whole bunch of them and clicked on unsubscribe. The amount of spam went down to almost nothing. Totally worth the 15 min of effort. Legitimate companies (who make up most of the spam I get these days) honor unsubscribe requests, the illegitimate ones will not care about any anti-spam laws anyway.

Perhaps things have changed. But probably that only works with companies you actually signed up with yourself at one time.

The bulk of spam is something you've never signed up for, and historically unsubscribing simply got your address passed on
to someone else who would start sending you spam. You might be surprised how often this is still the case. I will occasionally
signup for some temporary thing with a unique name and see how far it spreads.

With Spamassassin or gmail filtering my mail these days I get very little spam.

The spam bin is chock full, but I never look in there. It purges itself after a few days. I seriously don't even look any more.

All those millions of dollars of missed business due to false positives never showed up, and all the fear mongering about not daring to arbitrarily delete spam turned out to be nonsense.

Re:Try unsubscribing (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year ago | (#44314623)

If they were legitimate they wouldnt have spammed you or me in the first place. Report them all to Spam@utc.gov and Spamcop they get enough complaints they will get big fines. Who spams me now? Facebook,E harmony they have a massive TV ad campaign going on as well now. breyers ice cream, but hate breyers its nothing but air. Which is another complaint i have we are getting assraped by ice-cream makers. I dont unsud from anything i never used or asked for and thats that it all gets reported. PS wasn't there a web site that did the unsubscribing and got death threats so tey quit doing it. Bluefrog something.

Re:Opt-in? Finally! Wish I was Canadian. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311543)

The issue is, a lot of people DO opt-in to these spam 'news letters' without even realizing it. These are the same people who rapidly click through sign-ups, or enter contests (not on-line, IRL such as a local convenience store or at festivals). These things typically have a disclaimer stating that you will receive information regarding them or other companies. Or even on-line purchases usually have a checkbox auto-checked saying "Recieve Specials & Offers from so-so" Sure, these laws may help protect the consumer, but you can not protect the consumer from themselves.

Re:Opt-in? Finally! Wish I was Canadian. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44314787)

The issue is, a lot of people DO opt-in to these spam 'news letters' without even realizing it. These are the same people who rapidly click through sign-ups, or enter contests (not on-line, IRL such as a local convenience store or at festivals). These things typically have a disclaimer stating that you will receive information regarding them or other companies. Or even on-line purchases usually have a checkbox auto-checked saying "Recieve Specials & Offers from so-so" Sure, these laws may help protect the consumer, but you can not protect the consumer from themselves.

There is no good reason for this post to be sitting at -1 right now. What he says is perfectly valid, if you have a problem with his post then present a counter-argument, don't just down-mod him for no reason.

Re:Opt-in? Finally! Wish I was Canadian. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44312507)

Problem is that the spammers spam from countries that have little or no spam legislation or enforcement: India, China, Estonia, Russia, Ukraine, Brazil, etc, etc.
There is little control to register a website or set up a mail server, and spammers also love to zombie a mail server that isn't theirs.
A solution needs to be global and enforced. If country X doesn't play along, wall them off. Screams of "1984"? Sorry, the scum and baddies have taken over the Internet. Something needs to be done - sooner rather than later.
I would be happy to pay an ISP and have to register, with ID, but in return get an Internet that is free of ads, spam, pron, tricksters, etc. Oops, there goes 99% of the www...

Re:Opt-in? Finally! Wish I was Canadian. (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44314535)

Correct.

Ant that is why TFA itself says

Will individuals see an effect once the new law is in force? Probably not.

All this means is that Canadians won't spam (if the law is enforced).

So what... (5, Insightful)

Kinwolf (945345) | about a year ago | (#44311067)

I live in Canada, and we still get tons of spam, telemarketing phones calls on home line and cel phone. They simply come from the USA now. Country laws are useless when crime has no more frontier.

Re:So what... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311773)

As another Canadian I have to say my personal fav is US spam telling me how i can get cheap drugs in Canada.

Don't worry, after all the exemptions you will still get spam.

You know the first exemption will be "politicians" sending mass email.

Re:So what... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44313791)

One of the national networks aired an investigation after the CRTC said there wasn't much that could be done. It ended up with the reporter and his hidden camera in a rundown office building in Karachi.

Re:So what... (1)

Cabriel (803429) | about a year ago | (#44314521)

Speaking as a Canadian, if a telemarketer from the US calls a Canadian phone, they have to abide by Canadian laws regarding the phone call as should be described in our trade agreements for doing cross-border business. Sign up for the Canadian Do Not Call Registry. It works.

Re:So what... (1)

dimeglio (456244) | about a year ago | (#44335209)

Agreed. Since being on the list, the number of calls I get from marketing companies at supper time is practically zero.

Re:So what... (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#44316089)

I don't know if you can do this in Canada but I set my phone to automatically send "out of area" calls to voicemail. It's really effective because the spammers waste their time talking to a machine and it's easy for me to simple delete anything from numbers I don't recognize without even listening to them.

go canada (1)

dirtaddshp (1188189) | about a year ago | (#44311075)

seems they have been doing alot more right than wrong recently.

Re:go canada (1)

Quasimodem (719423) | about a year ago | (#44311815)

I guess you missed Bills C-30 and C-46 which would have forced ISP's to give police access to information on all Canadian Internet subscribers and all their private communications – without a court warrant.

And you must have also missed Vic Toews, former Conservative Minister of Public Safety, saying to an opponent that "he can either stand with us or with the child pornographers."

If Canada is doing anything right, its on account of it's citizenry fighting back against its government.

Re:go canada (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year ago | (#44312267)

Pretty sure that no one missed it. Rather that the general public was wholly against the law, made their displeasure known, and it was killed hard and fast for being stupid. Regardless of that, it would have ended up at the supreme court and would have been struck down as over-reaching. Similar to how the warrantless tapping of phones was struck down as unconstitutional even in exigent circumstances(as a note---that was the same wording in C30 and C46.).

Of course it was also the same government that you're talking about fighting back against, who gave the CRTC a kick to the face when they tried to force User based billing(UBB) on everyone, and at rates that would have made being on a TPIA(third party internet provider) so expensive that people would have no choice to go back to the incumbents.

RIGHT THEN !! 20 YEARS ON AND !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311077)

This will work !!

Where are the loopholes? (3, Insightful)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about a year ago | (#44311083)

You know. The ones for political campaigning, well connected people, etc.

Every single one of these Anti-Spam laws come with them.

Do Not Call List (1)

DarthVain (724186) | about a year ago | (#44311605)

Sounds very similar to the telemarketing Do Not Call List.

Same problems likely. Too many loopholes. No enforcement.

However it is a step in the right direction. Seems every now and again they might try and make an example of the very worst to make it look like they are actually doing anything about it.

Anyway got to start somewhere I suppose, even if useless and toothless. Typically this kind of legislation is setup to get at the worst offenders, while allowing a lot a pass for economic reasons mostly. Even if it isn't initially enforced, the law is in place that will allow it to be should the public make a big enough fuss about it politically.

Where's the advantage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311093)

Will individuals see an effect once the new law is in force? Probably not. Most spam is being filtered out by Internet service providers and email services already. In this respect, the new law may be too late. Further, most spam originates from outside of Canada. Technically, the Canadian law applies to senders outside Canada that send electronic messages into Canada, but it remains to be seen how effective international cooperation will be in enforcing CASL in other countries, or how it will be achieved.

[...]

Although individuals may not notice the new laws, businesses certainly will. The new rules make commonplace marketing practise illegal, and create a mess of red tape to navigate. Social media strategies, including viral marketing, will need to be reviewed to ensure they are compliant with the legislation.

Individuals won't notice, (legitimate) businesses will go under, and actual spammers won't be affected. I hate spammers as much as any Canadian but I fail to see the 'good' in this law.

I'm Canadian (5, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#44311103)

Any reply to this comment will be treated as unwanted spam.

Being Canadian, however, I feel the need to say that I'm sorry if my comment offended anyone.

Re:I'm Canadian (1)

atom1c (2868995) | about a year ago | (#44311399)

LOL! Well, if any comment is treated as unwanted spam, then I might as well laud you for your actions and attempt at humour... cuz nobody ever wants to be recognized for any actions they've ever taken.

Why would the spammers pay attention? (4, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | about a year ago | (#44311115)

There are tons of regulations etc against spam in many countries. Guess what? The people running the spam/scan email systems simply do not care. There is zero enforcement of these rules, so why should adding more regulations make any difference?

Re:Why would the spammers pay attention? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311191)

Clearly the old laws failed not because of lack of enforcement, but lack of advertisement that spamming was illegal. By loudly announcing this new (unenforced) law, spammers are sure to turn themselves in because now they know that their actions are illegal.

Somewhat unrelated, but can anyone come up with viable lyrics for "Canadian Parliament" set to the tune of "Modern Major General"?

Re:Why would the spammers pay attention? (1)

msobkow (48369) | about a year ago | (#44311345)

Yeah, I expect it to be about as useful as the "Do Not Call" registry.

Re:Why would the spammers pay attention? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311563)

There are tons of regulations etc against spam in many countries. Guess what? The people running the spam/scan email systems simply do not care.

I disagree.

The usual Nigerian princes and penis enlargement scams are easy to filter out with software.

Lately I've been getting spam from real companies who must have purchased my contact info somewhere. It's much harder to filter these out with software. I call them up and yell at them, but it would be far more enjoyable to sue them.

Re:Why would the spammers pay attention? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#44311885)

There is zero enforcement of these rules

Often it's because either the perpetrators are in a different country, and/or they are small fly-by-night "shadow" companies that shuffle names and recombine every couple of weeks such that you can't find them.

Re:Why would the spammers pay attention? (1)

godel_56 (1287256) | about a year ago | (#44312341)

There are tons of regulations etc against spam in many countries. Guess what? The people running the spam/scan email systems simply do not care. There is zero enforcement of these rules, so why should adding more regulations make any difference?

Not at all. It looks like Canada has pretty much copied its legislation from Australia, and the Australian laws have been working pretty well for several years.

You can only send ads/spam if you have an established business relationship with the recipient or have opted in in some manner (filled out some kind of promotional form, most likely), and every message must have a working unsubscribe link. The amount of spam generated by Australia dropped to almost zero compared to what it was before the legislation was introduced, and there is proper enforcement — some bulk spammers have been fined millions of dollars.

Re:Why would the spammers pay attention? (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44313331)

The fines are big enough to make law enforcement interested.

When spamming is illegal, only criminals will spam (2)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year ago | (#44311117)

Oh wait, that's happening already. Thanks for a useless law.

Re:When spamming is illegal, only criminals will s (2)

KPU (118762) | about a year ago | (#44311243)

Many businesses spam customers. Banks are especially bad about this. No I would not like a balance transfer.

Re:When spamming is illegal, only criminals will s (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311469)

No they don't. Spam is unsolicited and from criminals 100% of the time.

Annoying emails from banks and organizations which you have a connection with are NOT spam. Annoying, yes, but spam they are not.

Oh, and those ones from Citibank aren't actually from Citibank. They're spam from criminals.

Re:When spamming is illegal, only criminals will s (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#44311593)

It's usually better to go with non-nebulous terms like Unsolicited Commercial Email. Annoying emails from banks and organizations which I have a connection with ARE Unsolicited Commercial Email if they are a) unsolicited, b) commercial and c) sent electronically. It doesn't matter if I have a bank account with them; I never told them I was interested in their other offerings. If we had any other conversations over their other offerings, it was me telling them I never wanted to hear about their credit card offerings. Interestingly, if *I* try to contact THEM about such things, they tell me that the credit card stuff comes from a different company held by their parent corporation. Which goes full circle to the fact that I don't have a relationship with that company, and so should not be receiving offers from them.

Hopefully this law will close that loophole.

Re:When spamming is illegal, only criminals will s (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311797)

No they don't. Spam is unsolicited and from criminals 100% of the time.

Annoying emails from banks and organizations which you have a connection with are NOT spam. Annoying, yes, but spam they are not.

Oh, and those ones from Citibank aren't actually from Citibank. They're spam from criminals.

Actually, it is

I get monthly mailings separately from Rogers Wireless (I haven't had a Roger's cell in years), Rogers Cable TV, and Rogers Hi-Speed Internet, offering their latest/greatest bundle. I did not opt-in to marketing-spam, and this new law covers that, meaning that if I get letters from them now offering services I repeatedly tell them I don't want, then I can sue them (or at least rat them out and get them a huge fine).

Similarly I get monthly mailings separately from Bell for Wireless "As an existing customer" (I've never had Bell for wireless) and Bell Satellite TV (again, never had dealings with them). Both of these mailings come from a door-to-door marketing firm running through the neighborhood, for whom I opened the door and confirmed I'm the resident (they subsequently signed me up for all of their BS)

The only correspondence I might care about from Rogers is a notice of increase in my existing Cable TV rates (they are legally obligated to send those notifications, so I have time to cancel my service before it goes into effect), or default on payment (which I've never done, but I'd still like to know if I ever do), and I want no correspondence from Bell, ever.

Part of this new law is "Opt-In" is mandatory, instead of "Opt-Out".

I, for one, look forward to our new lack of unsolicited snail-mail.

Re:When spamming is illegal, only criminals will s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311927)

I guarantee you that you did in fact opt-in to these, even if you aren't aware of it. If there is an opt-out which works, which is the case with practically every legitimate business on the planet, including Rogers, it is not spam.

Re:When spamming is illegal, only criminals will s (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year ago | (#44313227)

meaning that if I get letters from them now offering services I repeatedly tell them I don't want, then I can sue them (or at least rat them out and get them a huge fine).

The web page linked in TFA that talks about this law says nothing about letters, only electronic communications like email.

I, for one, look forward to our new lack of unsolicited snail-mail.

Citation required.

Do Not Call List (3, Insightful)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44311133)

I expect that this will probably be about as frequently enforced at the USA's National Do Not Call List.

Re:Do Not Call List (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#44311629)

Well, the Canadian DNC list had the effect that now all telemarketing calls to Canada come from Texas. I'm all for a law that stops Canada being a spam source, even if they just incorporate in Texas. It narrows the field, and makes it easier for me to decide if something's legit or not. Once all calls and emails coming from Texas are deemed unsolicited, it's an easy step to blocking Texas until they clean up their act.

Re:Do Not Call List (1)

Khopesh (112447) | about a year ago | (#44311661)

I expect that this will probably be about as frequently enforced at the USA's National Do Not Call List.

I agree. It takes a substantial amount of infrastructure to merely facilitate a complaint-receiving mechanism let alone to act on it. (I would know, I work on SpamCop, and our "enforcement" consists of sending abuse reports to network owners and/or blocklisting IPs on the SpamCop Block List.)

Uhhhm, yeah. (1)

Kimomaru (2579489) | about a year ago | (#44311153)

They don't think that maybe email should be retired and replaced with a secure technology? Maybe they can get started legislature that will mandate more memory for the Atari 2600.

Opt-in (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311157)

I think opt-in is the only way it should be done. Germany also has this i think, double opt-in via email is the method implemented, so you even have to confirm your opt-in. I dont think it will harm businesses as much as stated in the article as it is working elsewhere. What is interesting is the penalties. I think they should be percentage of gross earnings instead of a flat rate penalty. The biggest issue which is not addressed is not spam from canadian firms but spam coming from other countries where the canadian law does not apply.

Re:Opt-in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311257)

The idea that it would harm business is idiotic. Stick a checkbox (default UNCHECKED) on the online order form letting them choose if they want to receive any messages beyond order/shipping confirmation. That's the blindingly obvious common-sense sledgehammer-to-the-face-if-you-think-otherwise right way to do it.

Re:Opt-in (1)

Khopesh (112447) | about a year ago | (#44311753)

You "opt in" whenever your RFID badge is scanned at a conference or buy a product online. That's why they're giving out so many "free" iPads at conferences.

Most businesses claim that they would be crippled by using confirmed opt-in. That's probably an exaggeration, but the next step to winning that iPad could merely be confirming the opt-in email notification (which is increasingly trivial due to email-ready smartphones).

You also need to consider international marketers, who aren't subject to most of these laws (and/or risk nothing by way of enforcement). They'll keep doing whatever they like. Beyond that, there's the straight-up criminals, and there's nothing stopping them from buying lists from shady (or legit) marketers, scraping emails off the web, or even walking through a conference with a homemade RFID badge reader.

Re:Opt-in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311861)

A CDN10,000,000 fine per-violation is hardly a paltry flat-rate penalty.

That means if Rogers sends out a single unsolicited e-mail or snail-mail advertisement to every resident in Toronto (roughly 2.6 million people, excluding surrounding burroughs), they're looking at roughly 26 trillion dollars in fines (which, of course, they'll probably bargain down, but that's beside the point).

They send out roughly 2-3 of these junk mailings a month currently...

Dead Tree Spam (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about a year ago | (#44311271)

I get so much dead tree junk mail that I'm surprised there aren't laws trying to stop it.

Re:Dead Tree Spam (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#44311649)

I get so much dead tree junk mail that I'm surprised there aren't laws trying to stop it.

That stuff supports the postal system.

Interestingly, in Canada, if you affix a sticker to your mailbox indicating you do not with to receive bulk mail, they're supposed to honour it. Unfortunately, they rarely do.

Re:Dead Tree Spam (1)

green1 (322787) | about a year ago | (#44312043)

I have a sticker on my mailbox that says "no flyers" they honour it some of the time, when they don't, I file an online complaint with Canada Post, that stops the junk mail for a couple of months, and then they start delivering it again.
I had an argument with my letter carrier at one point, I caught them putting jumk mail in my mailbox, I asked if they would please stop doing that, they told me to get a sign, I pointed at the one already there, and then they claimed that they never put junk mail in mailboxes with signs like that! (ummmm... I just caught you doing it!!) Of course even those signs also won't help with "addressed admail" which is usually addressed to "current occupent" or "resident" They insist they have to deliver those ones by law. Unfortunately I do still get the occasional important item by mail, so I can't just put up razor wire around the mailbox and tell Canada Post to stick it.

Re:Dead Tree Spam (1)

aclarke (307017) | about a year ago | (#44313549)

Don't forget the crap they just throw onto your driveway that has nothing to do with Canada Post.

Re:Dead Tree Spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44313755)

I'm Canadian too, living in a condo, and have one of those stickers on my mailbox. Hey, it has to be the offical condo-supplied sticker - whatever forbid that they shouldn't all look the same. But glancing thru the latticework into other boxes that don't have the sticker, its effect is substantial.

YAY FOR US (1)

maliqua (1316471) | about a year ago | (#44311319)

victory is ours

Yes...strict...rolls eyes. (3, Informative)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year ago | (#44311463)

Strict as in Canada's Do Not Call list, which only means once every 30 days you get telemarketers calling you, and you ask to be removed for the next 30 days. Also Strict in the sense that you still get hounded by charities and politicians calling you because they are exempt. And strict as in the sense that it's useless because I now get telemarketing from randomly generated phone numbers from foreign countries.

So yes, Canada implemented a useless regulation, again, yay.

The solution to spam is a good email client connected to a great email server. Running your own email server does not count. Creating a law does not work.

Re:Yes...strict...rolls eyes. (1)

djmurdoch (306849) | about a year ago | (#44311827)

So yes, Canada implemented a useless regulation, again, yay.

Don't cheer yet. In fact, though the anti-spam law was passed in April, 2011, but hasn't yet come into effect, because the regulations haven't been finished, so in fact *nothing* has been implemented.

According to the government web site http://fightspam.gc.ca/eic/site/030.nsf/eng/home [fightspam.gc.ca] , "A specific date for coming into force of the law will be set in the coming months." This lets us cheer twice: we can cheer when the date of the useless regulations is announced, and again when that date arrives (if it hasn't been pushed back...)

Re:Yes...strict...rolls eyes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44312159)

Actually if you have requested that they remove you and they call you back after 30 days you just have to file a complaint with the CRTC who have the power to remove all phone lines from the infringing company. Once you let the callers know that they tend to back off. Also if you let the callers that are calling from other countries know that they are going to cause their Canadian Offices to lose their phone lines they tend to back off also. For what it's worth.

Re:Yes...strict...rolls eyes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44314113)

"Strict as in Canada's Do Not Call list, which only means once every 30 days you get telemarketers calling you, and you ask to be removed for the next 30 days."

You're confused. The "30 days" (actually 31) is the time the law allows for the telemarketers to update their lists after you've added your number to it. So, you won't necessarily see an effect in that time period and you can't pursue a complaint in that time if they call. Once it's past, the Do Not Call list in Canada is active for 5 years at a time [lnnte-dncl.gc.ca] .

When I enrolled in the DNC list a few years ago, the number of telephone solicitations I got dropped to a tenth of what it used to be. Perfect? Heck, no. For example, I still got some calls from companies in the US that claimed they did not realize they were calling Canada (probably BS) and that they were not familiar with the Do Not Call list laws here (also BS). So, you're right that we start getting calls from elsewhere, but when I do I usually pick the menu item to talk to a real human, let them know they're calling Canada, that I'm on the DNC list, and that they are therefore breaking the law. If they're calling *into* Canada and doing business here they are subject to it. Would they get prosecuted? Probably not without hundreds or thousands of complaints. But I've found that once I let the telemarketer know that I am on that list and that I'm aware of the law they are breaking, I usually don't hear from them again. In any case, even without the individual requests, the DNC list did have a substantial effect within a couple of months.

Also, although I don't think you can stop politicians from contacting you all at once, you can *individually* ask them and charities to remove you from their contact lists, and they are legally obliged to do so.

Wrong results (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about a year ago | (#44311601)

Any bad companies sending spam will be off-shore and/or untraceable. The legitimate companies sending out emails that people subscribed to will be nailed for not following the exacting letter of the law. Just one more nail in the coffin of non mining businesses in Canada.

A simple predictive test for how effective laws of this type are in Canada would be the 3-5 calls I get per week where I have won a trip, can lower my CC rates, or have a problem with my "Windows" that I must immediately fix. Since the DNC came into effect I receive more, not less. This sucks because I am now answering zero long distance calls where I don't recognize the number.

Re:Wrong results (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | about a year ago | (#44312965)

Possibly interesting side note.
I was in a really bad mood, when I received one of those "You have won" calls. As I said I was in a bad mood, so I thought I would take it out on a telemarketer. So I stayed on the line, waiting for someone to yell at. No one came on the line, and after a few minutes they just dropped the call.
Not sure how they make any money when if you don't hangup on them, they hangup on you.

I am always unpleasant and abusive to telemarketers. I figure I am encouraging them to go look for another job. (It's just one of the public services I provide.)

"Canadian Pharmacy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311663)

Too bad this law can't stop non-Canadian phone-spammers from claiming to be "Canadian Pharmacy."

New? This is 2.5 years old already! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44311745)

This legislation was sssented to 2010-12-15. It still hasn't been enacted. It likely never will, but every couple of months someone comes along and rediscovers it.

The standard form (3, Funny)

Megane (129182) | about a year ago | (#44311949)

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.)

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X) 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
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
(X) 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
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
(X) 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:

(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) 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
(X) 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:

(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) 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!

Only international law can work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44313505)

If a spammers can operate in nation X to target nation Y, no national anti-spam law is worth a damn. Killing off the local spammers (who will tend to operate under some sense of self-control) means a giant hole that international spammers with no conscience whatsoever will fill.

America's sickening war crimes against other nations mean that many countries are in no mood to recognise external authorities. When the biggest force on the Earth is the most murderous and criminal in Earth's history, who the hell is going to accept the concept of supra-national policing? No sane nation is going to willingly give more authority to America.

Thus, we are in a time of lawlessness on an international level. Gangsterism, of the sort typified by the USA, tends to create this situation. Banning spam then just becomes a cover for isolating a given nation's Internet- and this is what Canada's move is really about. "We want to protect you from spam, but those nasty foreign spammers are beyond our jurisdiction, so we are going to have to put up Internet 'border controls'. " Many Governments like that in Canada have already asked "why should the Internet bypass our border controls?"

Best part is the handwringing (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | about a year ago | (#44314011)

Because you know, I could give a shit about spammers. It's the otherwise legitimate companies that drag their feet taking me off mailing lists I never signed up for, or make it an ordeal to find the unsubscribe information on their page or in the e-mail-- in the latter case, that shit sometimes doesn't even show up in the plaintext version.

Christ on a crutch. Just today, I got an e-mail from OnLive because some bot or idiot used one of my addresses to sign up with. I went to their opt-out page, and among other things was given the option to reroute their fucking newsletter to someone else's inbox without verification. In retrospect, I should have looked one of their executive e-mail addresses up and given it that.

Punish the minority despite the majority.... (1)

hawkingradiation (1526209) | about a year ago | (#44315401)

...Is the mantra of the Harper government. This bill can be seen in the same light: Get real tough (millions of $'s) to punish the few, while still leaving it open for other non-intentional or honest people to get taken to court. If I had a business, I would not like having to ask people to send them emails, I would rather have an "opt-out" system where an initial contact was made with an easy way to say, no thanks. A simple link or button would do, which is less effort than it takes now to opt-out from most spammers and seems to be a more sensible approach.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?