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!

Congress Sends Anti-Spam Bill To White House

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the hope-springs-eternal-like-a-slinkie dept.

Spam 287

sunbird writes "At just after 5 o'clock EST, the House concurred to the Senate's amendments to the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (or "CAN-SPAM") (bill in PDF format: here or here). Although the bill will prohibit certain tactics (such as hiding return addresses), critics state that the bill does not go far enough (see this press release). The bill will provide criminal penalties for violations of its provisions (up to five years behind bars), but will not allow private parties to sue spammers. News reports indicate (SF Gate or Forbes) that Bush intends to sign the bill. Prior Slashdot articles are here: 1 2 3."

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

close your eyes and visualize (-1)

CmdrTaco (troll) (578383) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664596)

goatse's gaping asshole

FPspam (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664606)


so (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664607)

big deal..not gonna do anything

This legalizes spam (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664610)

We covered this. Spam becomes legal 120 days after this is signed, even in states where it wasn't legal before.

Re:This legalizes spam (5, Funny)

Vainglorious Coward (267452) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664630)

That's why it's called the "CAN-SPAM" act. No trickery with naming there, nosir.

mmmmm, spam! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664678)

in facial cumshots (-1, Troll)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664615)

I think it is safe to say that most men consider the perfect finale to fellatio to be climaxing into/onto a beautiful girl's face. Is it possible to separate the more immediate and simpler pleasure of the underlying ejaculation from the more complex sensual and aesthetic properties of the facial cumshot ?

Authorities are strangely silent on the question. One might expect that Alphonse Donatien de Sade, D.H. Lawrence, or Henry Miller would have covered the topic, but this writer is unaware of any such treatment in their works. Far be it for me to trod in their footsteps, but I shall attempt in this modest essay to shed some light on the problem.

I think any such investigation has to begin with acknowledging the relative rarity, or infrequency of the male orgasm. While a female, whose orgasm, after all, is biologically meaningless, can easily reach orgasm 20 or 30 times a day, most health/medical professionals and porn film directors recognize that one or two major or substantive ejaculations per day is about the limit for the average healthy male. Thus the male tends to place a higher value on his orgasm and since his ejaculate is the primary visual and tactile evidence of same, it's only natural that he attaches a great importance to it.

In fact it can be argued that for many men, the visual confirmation of orgasm becomes fused in the psyche with the orgasm itself. Both Jung and Adler have explored several examples of such fusion between physical sensations and their visual confirmation, but again, this author is unaware of any explicit treatment of ejaculation. Of course this visual confirmation is not limited to an attractive girl's Max Factored and Maybellined visage splashed with jissem; after all a guy can come on her belly or ass, sometimes to positive aesthetic effect, but if we accept fellatio as the ultimate treat for the male, then perhaps it stands to reason that the facial cumshot is the logically perfect conclusion.

One of the many appealing aspects of facial cumshots is their uniqueness - like snowflakes, each one is different. Even similar cumshots display subtle variations - here a particularly heavy strand of jissem is hanging delicately from a girls bangs, there a beautiful pair of lips is pouting with an enticing frosted covering. This of course leads the male on an endless quest for the perfect" cumshot - he is guaranteed to spend the rest of his life looking for it. The adult film industry really should be doing a better job in this endless quest. I mean, they are in a perfect situation - able to use some of the most beautiful women in the world, lots of cheap male actors, the directorial power to ensure that the end of every sex scene is a facial cumshot - why are there so many lame, uninspired facial cumshots out there ? Some of the guys look like they're on the fourth of fifth wad of the day. I propose an industry standard of 30 to 40 cc of ejaculate per cumshot. It should be simple to get across to the male actors - a higher rate of pay for substantial wads, and NO pay for watery, minuscule offerings. It's time for America to take the lead in this regard. Will any of our spineless politicians take action ?

The American medical establishment could lend its support here too. Surely there must be drugs/dietary aids that yield heavier amounts of ejaculate. Proposed name for sample drug: Mojiztrol. It would be nice if the average guy could fill up a Dixie cup with thick hot cum by taking a safe, easy to use prescription once or twice a day. Then when he finally gets a date with that hot new secretary at work, and she's going down on him and looks up at him and purrs "Cum in my face baby" he KNOWS he's not going to leave her disappointed. But alas, our medical research facilities waste time and money on boring shit like heart disease and AIDS.

Re: [the ideal troll for this thread] (3, Funny)

adrianbaugh (696007) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664692)

All it will take you to succeed with your inventive and novel product is to bring it to the world's attention. May I suggest a marketing campaign designed to target your audience rapidly and with discernment. I realise that commercial e-mail campaigns have had only limited success in the past, but feel that your product would make an ideal subject for such a campaign, blending the futuristic worlds of computer technology and biochemical research.
Remember: 1 hundred million emails can't be wrong. If we send a billion, someone might even buy something!
(It's funny. Laugh.)

Another Law (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664619)

Despite popular opinion, a US law will only stop domestic spam, and the weaknesses of punishing the actual company hiring the spammer have been made clear before e.g. Hiring someone to spam your competitors product.
Why not continue working on more effective spam traps and stop legislating morality.

Vegetarians eat Vegetables, Humanitarians frighten me.

Re:Another Law (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664647)

Despite popular opinion, a US law will only stop domestic spam

Or in this case, promote domestic spam.

Re:Another Law (1)

conner_bw (120497) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664662)

IANAL but believe that when spam [] becomes illegal, it supersedes other laws which would give you 'reasonable doubt' in a case involving vigilantism against a spammer that results in harm or death.

I say more people to the power!

Re:Another Law (0, Flamebait)

sfjoe (470510) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664726)

Why not continue working on more effective spam traps and stop legislating morality.

Stop legislating morality? Have you not been paying attention to which party is in power? Legislating morality is what they live for.

Re:Another Law (0)

AntiOrganic (650691) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664812)

It's completely unfair to group the majority of Republicans, the majority of whom are relatively centrist, in with the batshit insane neocons like Hatch, Coulter, O'Reilly and Hannity. It's just the nutjobs who get all the time in front of the camera because they stir up controversy.

Re:Another Law (1)

conner_bw (120497) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664838)

Those nut-jobs in front of the camera also wield all the power. Well, there is movie star Arnold... but i don't think he's your poster boy for centrism. Unfair or not, they are the problem and the Republican party ain't gonna fix it.

Re:Another Law (1)

mfago (514801) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664842)

batshit insane neocons like Hatch, Coulter, O'Reilly and Hannity

You forgot Ashcroft...

If anyone was the next Hitler, it would be him.

Re:Another Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664892)

Haha. Hitler had charisma.

Hitler's don't look like psychopaths, they look just like you. They say the things your heart feels but your mind lacks the eloquence to express. That's why their dangerous.

Small tyrants like Ashcrot. There's nothing to fear from them. They get out of hand, it's settled, if not by the system then by someone they pissed off. The people who have his back do so because it's their job, not because they love him, and their numbers and viglance reflect that.

Re:Another Law (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664946)

You forgot Ashcroft... If anyone was the next Hitler, it would be him.

I can only assume you're one of those kooks that insists the holocaust didn't happen. After all, the only possible way you could compare Hitler to anyone (besides Hussein, Stalin, and a handful of others) is to ignore most of what Hitler did.

Comparing Hitler to Ashcroft (1, Insightful)

Safety Cap (253500) | more than 10 years ago | (#7665051)

~ the only possible way you could compare Hitler to anyone ... is to ignore most of what Hitler did.

Like the part where Hitler suspended civil liberties [] "temporarily"?

Re:Another Law (1)

The Almighty Dave (663959) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664882)

Don't waste your time, Rebubicans are evil. The Democrats would be doing everything perfectly right now, if they were in office.

It is so easy to be the leader of a country. Anyone could just step right in there and do it. There's no pressure, no responsibility.

Talk is cheap, too bad these idiots will never have the chance to try. It would be fun to laugh at them as they fail.

Re:Another Law (1)

T9D (727450) | more than 10 years ago | (#7665005)

Democrats had a "try". Ever heard of a guy named Clinton? He led 8 of the most prosperous years this country has ever seen. So successful, in fact, that his vice president was voted for by a majority of the population.

Yeah. Democrats never do that. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664862)

Have you perhaps looked at laws and their selective enforcement lately? A woman can rape a child, have his baby, and sue him for child support, maybe she'll go to jail. A woman can lie to a man she's not married to about whether a child is his, and even if this is later shown to be false, he is still obligated to pay her money? A woman can be with a man who doesn't adopt her pre-existing children, and if they get used to him, he now owes THEM money?


The Democrats want to take you money and give it to someone else, because they feel guilty about being rich and lying all the time, so you should too. The Republicans just want to make sure you're not thinking bad thoughts, and fucking the right person, unless that person is a mistress, in which case be discreet so "those" people don't end up in *their* country club. Oh and rich people should be allowed to fly to europe for abortions, but poor people should be forced to have kids, preferably uneducated, to keep the price of manual labor affordable.

Re:Another Law (5, Insightful)

the_mad_poster (640772) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664865)

Why is this modded Insightful and not Troll or Offtopic?

They're legislating the same bullshit any legislator of any party legislates - something that looks good to the ignorant public but really satisfies the desires of big shot campaign contributors.

They know damn well that the general public isn't going to take a closer look at this legislation. It will go into the paper and people will think "oh good, my elected officials are finally doing something". When spam doesn't die down, they'll just forget about it. Re-election material for the morons in Congress and a nod that legitamizes spamming for big business interests in the marketing sector. It's just a typical day on Capitol Hill. Doesn't matter which party's in charge.

Re:Another Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664982)

um, how are they legislating morality? Democrats and liberal activist judges got Abortion legalized. Prayer in school was banned because of a liberal and their ilk, and hmm... lets see... We have liberals throwing "Nullify Marriage" out there because Gays and Lesbians can't get a fair shake, not to mention this whole bastardized Politically Correct bullshit where we can't say God in fucking school, but your kids can protest war, preach Islam and have Pagan "festivals" celebrated. I'd say the fuckin republicans are the only thing remotely keeping this country from collapsing under the weight of it's own decadance and LACK of morality.

Re:Another Law (1, Insightful)

gid13 (620803) | more than 10 years ago | (#7665002)

You know, I'm aware that laws can bring order. But really, if we aren't legislating morality, what's the point? An ordered immoral society sounds kinda like the Nazis to me...

Please note that I'm as anti-Republican as the next guy, and generally don't consider them moral. I'm just saying that I don't see any GOOD point of a law doing anything other than legislating morality.

That's what you think. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664774)

Just wait until our Open Warfare Doctrine goes pre-alpha. Open relays are the reason the US Navy has been increasing it's stores of cheap (~$50,ooo) cruise missles.

Re:Another Law (1)

homer_ca (144738) | more than 10 years ago | (#7665015)

Most spam from foreign IPs is actually a US spammer relaying through an open relay or open proxy. That would be illegal under this bill. If the spammer is US-based, he'll have to advertise some domestic product, and he'll have some target for enforcement. What this bill does legalize is the mainsleaze spammers like Topica, Flowgo, etc. They spam from their own IPs and don't disguise themselves with proxies. If this bill makes a dent in the open proxy and open relay spammers, we'll be better off on balance. At least the "legal" spammers will be easy to block by banning their IPs.

what to do (3, Interesting)

senatorpjt (709879) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664625)

The ability for private parties to sue spammers when there is a documented attempt to stop it might help. Most people can't do it, but there are enough people who know what they're doing to be able to track the actual individuals down that it would seem to be helpful.

Re:what to do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664955)

Except that this law will take away the right of individuals to sue spammers - even where state's now provide for it! ISP's can, though.

Typically, Republican crap - companies not people.

I want your honest opinion... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664629)

Does this [] turn you on?


Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664653)

I'm not sure why after looking at that pic, but it is. What do you suggest I do about this situation?


the pickle (261584) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664790)

You could just look over to your e-mail inbox and revel in the pile of offers for making said penis even bigger, or making it even more warm and tingly by viewing photos of naked celebs, or keeping it stiff by buying giant mountains of 100% natural herbal viagra-like products.

Of course, you'll need some way to purchase all those things, so you probably ought to take up that nice Nigerian gentleman on his offer to pay you 10% of the 50 million US dollars he wants to transfer into your bank account.


Earlest Fr0st (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664632)

I'm going to go poo poo now!


Amsterdam Vallon (639622) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664633)

Republicans are pro-business, and marketing is a type of business.

Therefore, this measure will not be adopted.

I have an undergraduate degree in politics, a Master's in math, and a Ph.D. in computer science. I know what I'm talking about.

bush.... (-1, Troll)

alitaa (636041) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664636) a faggot

Re:bush.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664732)

Let's see, President Bush has a wife and daughters, you jerk off to gay porn on the internet. The only reason you aren't taking it in the ass right now is you are afraid to admit your homosexual tendencies.

Who's the faggot?

The United States Anti-Spam Bill (5, Funny)

EinarH (583836) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664639)

We the Congress of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect spam heaven, establish Protection, insure domestic Annoyance, provide for the miserable defence, promote the general Chaos, and secure the Blessings of Financial Freedom to ourself and our Contributors, do ordain and establish this Anti-Spam Bill for the United States of America.

Re:The United States Anti-Spam Bill (3, Interesting)

MrLint (519792) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664876)

well watch soon the spammers will sue you for blocking their spam as it blocks legally protected interstate trade.

Re:The United States Anti-Spam Bill (1)

Javit (68742) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664962)

so what's the going rate for domestic annoyance insurance these days, anyway? I was thinking of moving in with my brother, so now seems like a good time.

So that's how you get the Repbulicans to go along! (4, Insightful)

wrinkledshirt (228541) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664654)

Phrase the bill in a way to let them think they're banning pornography! Genius!

litigation wont work (-1, Interesting)

adamruck (638131) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664658)

lititgation is not going to help the spam situation, the result of anti-spam laws in the us is simply going to mean that spam will be routed through some foreign country

Re:litigation wont work (2, Insightful)

tarquin_fim_bim (649994) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664688)

No, now spamming is to become legal in the US, it will continue to be the spam center of the world.

Re:litigation wont work (2, Interesting)

gcaseye6677 (694805) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664759)

This doesn't really change much, in that state laws by definition are powerless to stop spam. California will have NO luck whatsoever prosecuting a spammer outside the U.S, and very little luck with a spammer in Wisconsin. There is certainly nothing in the law that requires ISPs or anyone else to deliver spam, so existing blocking and filtering techniques are not affected. Technological solutions are really the only thing that can make an impact on spam, and it helps to be able to prosecute someone who forges headers.

just caught this on CNN (5, Funny)

edrugtrader (442064) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664667)

supposedly the bill was placed on the president's desk a few hours ago, but he threw it out thinking it was garbage.

Re:just caught this on CNN (5, Funny)

Feztaa (633745) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664893)




Spam Meets Junk Mail (5, Informative)

the_mad_poster (640772) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664670)

... being written and passed solely through back-room compromises and with the input of the marketing industry and Internet Service Provider lobbies, but with scant regard for the interests of America's consumers and business Internet users.

First of all, why doesn't THAT surprise me in the least? In other words, "legitimate" marketers, like them or not, get free fun of your inbox the way they do your mailbox. Except, of course, it costs next to nothing to spam people so it will be like them jamming 1000 unwanted credit card apps, catalogs, and other miscellaneous garbage into your mailbox everyday.

Now, some of you might think that "legitimate" businesses won't try to abuse this. For you poor, naive fools, let me tell you that I work in a "legitimate" direct mail company and we junk mail the shit out of people. They ask us to stop? Ok - we stop selling their name and address and then we stop sending them stuff. Of course, if they do business with us again, the whole thing starts over. Yahoo!, in fact, appears to have already caught onto this idea within the realm of spam. Expect to see changes in "privacy policies" to be used more frequently as excuses to override requests not to spam.

In short, expect your spam count to rise. It will just be a little more "honest", as the CAUCE release notes, not a better situation in general. Go Congress. I'm just sooooooo proud of my government at times like this.

Dear Sir, (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7665022)

I would like to thank you for your contribution to this difficult issue. Your refreshingly honest observations, and candid, even blunt, discussion due you credit.

I can only begin to image the struggle within you as you try to come to grips with the seemingly mutually exclusive desires to avoid being an ass-clown who people want to see bleeding in a gutter, and avoid starving or freezing to death (possibly in a gutter while bleeding).

I would like to do what I can to remove some of your burden. To this end, I would ask your work address so I might send you a book that helped me through some tough times. "Deep Thoughts: My Journey Into The Wilderness Within" by Theodore Kaczynski.

I love this book! Regaurdless of what reasonable people might think of the man, I'm sure this could help you, and those with whom you share it with, see the light. I can promise that after opening this tome of wisdom you'll find his clear meditations ringing in your ears changing your life in ways you couldn't have imagined only minutes earlier. In fact, when it arrives, you may wish to gather your co-workers around for the unvieling, they'll be blown away too. Something this good just demands to be shared.

Take me up on my friendly offer. You won't regret it for a second. :) (j/k)

Legitimate Companies (3, Insightful)

KalvinB (205500) | more than 10 years ago | (#7665023)

tend to use proper english and other tells that crap spammers don't. I have no problem with spam that's sent that follows rules. It makes filters much more effective.

I had a problem with spammers sending spam with popunders. I added in a rule to Mercury to delete any message that contained the line "script langage=javascript." BAM. No more of those. In fact, I'd really appreciate if all spammers would use Java-script in their messages.

Don't like Yahoo spamming you? Guess what? They follow rules and guidlines for their messages. All you have to do is figure out what tells their messages have and configure your mail server to block any messages that match those tells.

No, this isn't going to fix the whole spam problem but at least it's making it easier to block.

I don't get any e-mails with the ADV: in the subject either. More spammers should follow that rule. "Legitimate" spammers do follow that rule. So I really don't care if the government gives them an out. My mail filter can handle them just fine without legistlation.

It's the idiots that invent new combinations of words and letters that are a problem. We need legislation to be able to go after those we can as well as techical means and social means to get them to knock it off.

There are laws about litter, too. That hasn't solved the litter problem but it helps a bit. And just like litter, everyone needs to do their part with spam. Maybe we should take a hint from Singapore and start caneing people who spam.

Not doing anything because it's not 100% is just silly. There is no silver bullet for spam. It's nice to know that Congress has the sense to at least make some kind of dent. On top of legislation we also need technical solutions and social solutions.

Pretending we should just focus on one solution is going to accomplish exactly zero.


damn lame bill (4, Insightful)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664673)

This bill will do absolutely nothing to help. It promotes opt-out, as if spam was only a U.S. problem. Put your e-mail address on the list and expect tons of spam from outside the US. Keep it off and the damn spammers will claim that as an excuse why they should spam you. And when this doomed-to-fail bill has no positive effect, the government will not admit they screwed up in the structure of the bill, rather they will use the failure to say you can't fight spam with bills.

The only hope I see now is that maybe the E.U. will get their act together and show up the corrupt U.S. idiots.

Another reason.. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664675)

..not to vote for Bush in the coming elections!

Re:Another reason.. (1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664724)

You needed another reason? Give it a week and you'll have ten more dead soldiers, all from poor families, and ten more reasons to not vote for that Miserable Failure! []

Spam them (4, Funny)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664689)

Here's a list of the email addresses of all your Congressman. Maybe someone can whip together a script to send them an email asking them to repeal this law, every day until they opt out or repeal the law. Extra karma points for randomizing the title among non-misleading possibilities. Then we just gotta get every single slashdotter to run the program.

Re:Spam them (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664703)

Oops, the list is here [] .

Re:Spam them (1)

baneblackblade (682424) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664823)

whether it works or not it'd still be fun to do. I'm sure it isn't all that hard. should the spamming begin before, or after the bill passes, though?

Re:Spam them (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664880)

I don't see any reason not to start now. But if you're going to get people to participate, there's going to need to be software to automate it all.

After we're done having fun with the congresscritters, we can turn our guns on the sales departments of those companies sending "legitimate" spam.

Re:Spam them - if you want to waste your time (5, Insightful)

silentbozo (542534) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664727)

You honestly think that they would have voted for this bill if they actually used their e-mail?

Devote your resources to bringing them bad press in their home district. Remember, all politics is local. Getting e-mails that their staffers will just toss won't bother them a bit. Getting embarassing questions during fundraisers about how they legalized spam will. Remember, this is an election year. Make spam an issue, and they'll HAVE to defend (or reverse) their position.

Re:Spam them - if you want to waste your time (0, Redundant)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664779)

You honestly think that they would have voted for this bill if they actually used their e-mail?

Oh, I'm sure they use e-mail. We just gotta find the right addresses, and incorporate that into version 2.0.

Getting e-mails that their staffers will just toss won't bother them a bit.

Oh well, at least it will bother their staffers.

Remember, this is an election year. Make spam an issue, and they'll HAVE to defend (or reverse) their position.

No they won't, because chances are their opponent will probably have the exact same position.

Re:Spam them - if you want to waste your time (3, Insightful)

toxic666 (529648) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664894)

Actually, my US senators and representative do use e-mail and have responded to my comments. No more meaningfully than to snail mail, but they use it. I feel no more disenfranchised when e-mailing them than I do when I used to send letters.

On the bright side, my state representative uses e-mail very effectively, both responding to my comments, sending out information and requesting feedback on topics with which he is concerned.

The only one I fail to hear from is my state senator, who gets elected by the party majority on the other side of my district and ignores anything that deals with my concerns.

The state rep admits spam is out of control, and recommends using good filtering because anything politically palatable enough to pass will be weak and ineffective. Long live open source MTA's and MDA's, rule-based and Bayesian filters. Really, can any legislation keep up with spammer technology? Heck, those open source solutions are about 97% effective from my data and require tuning to stay effective.

Re:Spam them - if you want to waste your time (1)

trauma (62841) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664966)

In certain circles, a well-timed question about whether it was their intention to support purveyors of pornography and fake penis-enlargment medications might work wonders.

How does one ask a public question like this in a way anybody would see it?

Re:Spam them - if you want to waste your time (1)

herrvinny (698679) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664985)

What about their relatives emails? Family's? Friends? Just start emailing away...

What is needed (1, Flamebait)

RedHatLinux (453603) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664690)

is a global Jihad against spam. We need to organize and lead a total assault on the economics of spam i.e. make it unprofitable.

In addition spammers need to be hunted to the far corners of the global and made to pay their stupidity. However this is done, i.e. death, jailing them in pound you in ass federal prisoners or beatings with heavy sacks they need to be eliminated and enough fear generated to scare off any potential replacements.

Re:What is needed (1, Insightful)

the_mad_poster (640772) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664898)

Except, the only reasonable way to make it unprofitable is to stop the idiots that insist on responding.

Re:What is needed (1)

Requiem Aristos (152789) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664967)

Oh, that's easily fixed. Just s/idiots/collaborators/ and apply the usual treatments.

( collaborate:
To cooperate treasonably, as with an enemy occupation force in one's country.

contrived acronyms (5, Funny)

cabalamat2 (227849) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664705)

What we really need is a law to ban all laws with contrived acronyms.

Re:contrived acronyms (3, Insightful)

YOU LIKEWISE FAIL IT (651184) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664844)

Agreed. Am I the only person who finds these cutesy acronyms unprofessional and beneath the dignity of the office? U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act indeed.


Re:contrived acronyms (1)

Zirnike (640152) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664981)

Something like the "Contrived Acronym (Legislative) Outlaw and Removal for Independant Evaluation of Merits (CALORIE-M)" bill? A low-cal alternative to stupic acronyms.

Re:contrived acronyms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664994)

Almost. You need to call it the Ban All Laws With Acronyms Contrived law. The BALWAC Law.

Say this in a Cartman voice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664713)

I got some spam I would say...hey, I am the president, I ain't signing this bill. I hate spam. etc.etcc

what was that again? (3, Funny)

tloh (451585) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664716)

the dyslexic in me read "Congress Sends **** Spam **** To White House". I wonder if Bush has as much use for penis enlargement pills as Clinton might have. Do you think Cheney would be interested in helping a nigerian banker's widow move 6 million USD out of africa?

okay, I have to go back to my boring life now.

Re:what was that again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664740)

If Nigeria has oil, Cheney is interested. Period!

Re:what was that again? (1)

filtur (724994) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664964)

I'm interested in your nigerian banker's widow, where may I get a brochure?

So long... (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664717)

So long, e-mail...

We loved you all the time you were alive.

We'll greatly miss-you.

Obligatory cynical, defeatest comment (0, Redundant)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664721)

This isn't going to cure all spam overnight all by itself therefore it's pointless.

EST? (0, Flamebait)

tarquin_fim_bim (649994) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664723)

At just after 5 o'clock EST

Doesn't anyone use UTC anymore?

Re:EST? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664735)

I think there's some people in England that do.

Re:EST? (0, Troll)

tarquin_fim_bim (649994) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664760)

You might be confusing UTC with GMT; They're radically different.

Your Bowels Cleansed (-1)

GhostseTroll (582659) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664730)

Your Bowels Cleansed

Let me ask you this...which is worse:

A. The engine on your Lexus freezes up at 160,000 miles instead of 300,000. You take a financial hit and you are forced to buy a Camry this time.

B. You start bleeding during bowel movements. You go to the doctor and get poked, prodded, X-ray'd, biopsied, etc. 3 days later you get a call for a consultation. The doctor informs you that you have advanced colon cancer at 45 years old. You have anywhere from 6 months to 5 years left to live. He tells you it's time to get your house in order because you'll be checking out soon. Chemotherapy starts today.

A friend of mine who was a science and health researcher at the University of Chicago, just died this past year of colon cancer at 42. In the midst of the prime of his life, he said goodbye, and left his wife and child behind, wondering what just hit them.

Why do you brush your teeth? Are your teeth falling out right now? For most of us, we do it so we won't need false teeth and Fixodent down the road...right? We want to be able to eat apples. Hey, I agree with that. Natural teeth are great.

But have you ever seen someone who was forced to endure a colonectomy? Someone who now will be spending the rest of their life carrying a bag around?

Incredibly, this is an area where even the staunchest MD's AGREE with us!! Can you believe it? If they knew you had the greatest colon cleanse in the world, I bet they might even refer people to you. NO, I'm not kidding...

This subject is not even up for debate. It's a proven fact. The problem is, most people are not doing anything about it. Please don't be one of them.

****WARNING***** The next section of this email contains graphic
material which may not be suitable for squeamish individuals.

Let's talk stools.

The stool tells you a lot about your colon health. If it's dark brown in color, and it sinks, and it stinks, that's not good. And don't feel bad, that's the way most people are. What you want to see is light brown color, which means it's full of fresh bile from the liver, very mild odor, and a stool that floats. We're talking low-density here folks. The more compaction you have the darker the color and the faster it sinks. Compaction is not good. Also, moving bowels should be SIMPLE. If the veins are popping out of your neck and you feel like your doing the bench press, you NEED to cleanse your colon.

When you do the cleanse, for the first few days....things are a little weird. But you know you're cleansed when you see the above good stuff happening, and you are eliminating at least 2-3 times per day.

Cleansing your colon is a 30-day process. Its also very economical at under $50. You may be very surprised at some of the benefits you will receive besides just losing 1-5 lbs of cr*p from your body and brightening your future health.

People have reported more energy, less allergies, clearing of acne, cessation of migraines, and many other results, not to mention restored regularity. When your body is void of old, poisonous toxins that are constantly being reabsorbed through the colon walls, it can begin to heal again. And when the colon walls are clean, the good nutrients from your food and supplements can be absorbed again. You will be thrilled with the results.

At this point you are either nauseated thinking about what is inside your own colon, or you're ready to do something about cleaning it out.

Want more info? Click here and I'll send it to you, including instructions on how to take it. It is private, all natural, totally safe, inexpensive, and very effective. And yes, I have taken it myself.

Currently available only in the U.S. and Canada. Seeking Distributors to meet high demand.

More Infor [] fo

Please do not 'reply' to this email as we might not see your message. Please use the links above.

Re:Your Bowels Cleansed (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664814)

But have you ever seen someone who was forced to endure a colonectomy? Someone who now will be spending the rest of their life carrying a bag around?

Actually, that would be pretty cool. Imagine you see someone you don't like. Just squeeze the contents of your colostomy bag all over him.

Now THAT'S getting even.

If only Congress... (3, Insightful)

rnturn (11092) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664743)

... would put as much time into forming realistic and meaningful legislation as they spent coming up with titles that form catchy acronyms.

Pre-empt state laws? (3, Insightful)

macdaddy (38372) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664756)

I have a question. Does anyone know for certain if this will pre-empt existing laws in the various states that are more restrictive than this farse that Uncle Sam is pushing through? For example my state has had an anti-spam law for 2.5 years now and I want to use it. Can I still sue a spammer for violating Kansas's anti-spam law? I'm thinking that I can because I read once that this law would pre-empt laws that aren't already on the books (like a new California law IIRC). Can anyone say for sure though. I know I'd like to know and I'm sure others do too.

Re:Pre-empt state laws? (3, Informative)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664923)

It's right in the law, section 8b: "This Act supersedes any stat-ute, regulation, or rule of a State or political subdivision of a State that expressly regulates the use of electronic mail to send commercial messages, except to the extent that any such statute, regulation, or rule prohibits falsity or deception in any portion of a commercial electronic mail message or information attached thereto."

How can a private party not sue? (5, Interesting)

pyite (140350) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664762)

I'm curious as how they can limit a private party from suing a spammer. Tell me if I'm reading this wrong:
Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
(Emphasis mine)

Re:How can a private party not sue? (2, Funny)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664840)

Is that from the Constitution or something? They repealed that back in 1865. Where have you been?

Re:How can a private party not sue? (2, Informative)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664978)

This isn't common law, this is statutory law.

"...Bush intends to sign the bill." (4, Insightful)

IvyMike (178408) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664782)

Bush hasn't vetoed anything [] yet...he's sure not going to make waves on something as insignificant as this.

Grover there's a guy who knew how to veto.

Spam Bill (3, Funny)

isomeme (177414) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664796)

Congress Sends Anti-Spam Bill To White House
...White House Spam Filter Deletes It.

(Yes, as a matter of fact I did steal that from The Onion, why do you ask?)

Why should they ban SPAM? (3, Informative)

Zeromous (668365) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664800)

I should like to point out that most politicians, including senators, run their own small to large businesses, of all shapes and sizes in some way- keeping their hands far enough away to avoid conflict of interest.

Do you really think that THEIR companies don't spam people?

And of course the usual suspect lobbies don't help much either, considering this is also politics + business.

Definition of 'Marketer' (3, Interesting)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664847) gives each marketer in the United States one free shot at each consumer's e-mail inbox

Can a subcontracted person be defined as a 'marketer'? I.E., Joe Spammer pays 'John Smith' $50 to one-time spam 3,000,000 addresses from his email account. 'John Smith' uses a valid return address but abandons account after the dirty deed is done. Technically within the law?

Re:Definition of 'Marketer' (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664965)

If someone pays someone else to send spam, then both the subcontractor and the person hiring the subcontractor have to abide by the opt-out. However, there is nothing stopping a company from offering reseller programs to people who then spam, as they are not paying anyone to spam, merely to resell their product. Plus, the law treats every division of a single company as a separate entity, so every division of your company can send a separate spam. Also, of course, if you set up a company, send 3,000,000 spams, then close the company and set up a new one, this also will protect you. And while this may be slighly costly in the United States, I'm sure there are other countries where companies can be set up much more cheaply.

How to get Bush to take REAL action against spam (4, Funny)

still cynical (17020) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664856)

Tell Cheney they've discovered oil where spammers are located. Watch the bombs start falling.

Private Party vs Company / ISP (2, Interesting)

ryanw (131814) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664872)

I know it doesn't allow Private Parties to sue, but I have affiliations with a smaller company that is an ISP for other ISP's. They have like 8 OC48's. Would THEY be able to sue people due to spams I receive through their network?

How about /.ing the White House? (4, Informative)

lax-goalie (730970) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664890)

The President's come under some criticism of late because he hasn't vetoed any bills in this term. Maybe we can give him a reason to change that.

White House contact info is at [] The most effective communication for this type of this thing is a real phone call and fax.

If you decide to fax a note, the general rules of thumb are to address the issue in the first sentence, to keep it short, be concise with your reasoning, and to note anything that gives you expertise relating to the issue.

These guys actually do keep track of the mail.

Bad idea (1, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664891)

I hate SPAN as much as the next fellow slashdotter. But having the goverment get it's hand into this sets a bad example. I really think the free market should be able to take care of this. Not the goverment.

Re:Bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7665021)

Damned right, should never have allowed the government to get involved in C-SPAN.

"CANadian-SPAM" act (1)

Lithium_Golem (730956) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664918)

Know why this is called the "CAN-SPAM" act? All that spam is going to have to get redirected somwhere... how about Canada?

Re:"CANadian-SPAM" act (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7664980)

As a Canadian, please allow me the opportunity to fill in the jokes before someone posts the same ones thinking that they're still funny...

All the ads will be for maple syrup.

All the ads will be for hockey equipment.

All the ads will be for sled dogs.

All the ads will be for igloos and igloo accessories.

Do they have electricity yet?

Okay, maybe some of them are still funny.

Re:"CANadian-SPAM" act (1)

Lithium_Golem (730956) | more than 10 years ago | (#7665008)

Don't forget the ads for snowshoes... gotta have snowshoes to get around the country side As a Canadian as well I was thinking about how all three of our computers will be able to handle all of that e-mail and if my cousin Bob from Toronto will be able to keep the network up.

Concerns by a CEO who has sued spammers (5, Interesting)

Joe Wagner (547696) | more than 10 years ago | (#7664938)

I am the CEO of Hypertouch Inc, one of the few corporations in California to have brought suit against a spammer under the existing CA anti-spam laws, and the only person so far who has be able to get the local DA to take a criminal complaints against spammers under the criminal provision of CA law. (see Some of the "minor changes" that the Senate made before sending it back to the House include changing the statutory damages from a flat $25 to "up to $25." Now small ISPs can't even count on the paltry $25/message when they decide to take a spammer on in Federal Court.

I should note one interesting wrinkle. Unlike what is common in other Federal laws, the act "supersedes any statute, regulation, or rule of a State or political subdivision of a State " but says _nothing_ about the District of Columbia. Soooo, if people can rally the DC council to pass a California-like law, perhaps there may be a new place to host your mail servers.

A final copy of the act can be found on my website. []
I'm pretty pessimistic about things right now. Here are my chief concerns about the bill.

1."I CAN SPAM " Act legalizes unlimited spam -- even after"opt-outs "
The "SEPARATE LINES OF BUSINESS OR DIVISIONS " clause in the act permits spammers to send repeatedly to you even after you've opted out as long as they change domain names, a.k.a. lines of business.

(B) SEPARATE LINES OF BUSINESS OR DIVISIONS- If an entity operates through separate lines of business or divisions and holds itself out to the recipient of the message, in complying with the requirement under section 5(a)(5)(B) [the opt out section], as that particular line of business or division rather than as the entity of which such line of business or division is a part, then the line of business or the division shall be treated as the sender of such message for purposes of this Act.

The impression we have is that the DMA asked for this so that one cannot opt out of spam from the Fortune 500 by giving notice to their corporate HQ, you have to track down each"Division. " But more to the glorious point from the Viagra spammers perspective, see what happens if I opt out of a spam for today's mail bin: (picked at random)
Easiest method to enlarge your $&#@%, stick on the patch, and forget about it! easy as 1-2-3. Find out how we can help your manhood [url in spam: ]
By my sending email (or going to or whatever hoops they choose to put up for their process), I can"opt out. " However that spammer will be able to spam me LEGALLY from all of their other lines of business, e.g., etc. Note that the spammer's email only represents itself as All they have to do is spend $7 every couple of weeks for a new domain for their new"Line of Busines " (they might even bother to call it a new Division) and they are home free. There is NOTHING I can do to stop this. I can track down every big spammer and personally serve them with an opt-out, but that doesn't trickle down to their thousands of "Divisions. "
Let's be clear -- Spammers are already talking about this open license on their bulletin boards and mailing lists.

2."I CAN SPAM " punishes only the spammer, not the marketer
By rotating through US based spammers, or using untraceable overseas spammers, often in Russia or China, businesses will be allowed to advertise via spam with abandon. The great strength of the upcoming California law is that is target both the marketer and the spammer. That will be gone when California laws are made void. For example, we have been trying to get Discover Credit Card to stop sending spam to us for over 18 months. They literally just regularly rotate through new spammers, and say I have to talk to the particular spammer that sent that particular spam run. First the spammer was in southern California, then Utah, then Minnesota -- and if they go to the lowest bidder, soon it will be from India or Russia. I have no way to protect Hypertouch's clients and users from Discover or other main stream companies with this new law, to say nothing of fringe spammers with their get rich quick schemes.

3."I CAN SPAM " allows only State AG, not local DAs to prosecute
It's been a big enough battle just getting my local DA to take complaint, when I can physically sit in the waiting room until they do. What chance do we have getting the AG in a distant city to do something. The CA law have been on the books for four years. How many cases has the CA AG managed to file in that can count it on one hand.

4."I CAN SPAM " Allows no private right of action
That's what makes the TCPA so effective. It allows private right of actions, and specifically allows cases to be filed in state courts. Now only ISPs who have the money to back up a case filed in Federal court can get protection.

5."I CAN SPAM " has no"Do Not Email " list mandate, just a FTC authorization
Took 12 years for FTC to make Do Not Call List after the TCPA"authorized it. " How long, if ever, will they take to implement such a list when FTC officials have already said, on the record, they do not think a do not call list would work.

6."I CAN SPAM " provides for no opt-out by Internet domain
You have to give a spammer your email address in order to opt-out. The act could have very easily explicitly allowed a domain owner to opt-out their entire domains from a spammer. Allowing a company or ISP IT department to protect their business. Instead, we will have to provide spammers with a full list of email addresses, and keep updating the spammers of any new accounts. Hypertouch has extensive first hand data and studies that show spammers do, as is widely believed, share"opt-out " submissions with other spammers and use them as confirmation of email addresses.

Attack the source of spam... (2, Interesting)

i8a4re (594587) | more than 10 years ago | (#7665011)

and not the spammers. I remember a while back there was a posting about the telemarketers that gave their phone number. After a few phone calls, they decided they didn't like their own medicine very much and even changed their phone number. Like most things we American's take on, we work our asses off for a very short period of time and then get tired of trying and most of us give up. I propose that we contact the companies whose products are advertised in spam, and inform them of how we do not approve of their marketing method.

Yes, spam is cheap and that is why it is so profitable for not only the spammer but the company that paid a direct marketing firm to advertise their product. Most companies have toll free numbers. If 1/1000th of the people who recieve spam for a product from a company in the US called this company, their marketing model would fall apart.

This would at least reduce spam for somewhat legitimate products. However, at best, we would only pull this off one time, and in a few months, all these companies would be right back at it.

What about alerts from mail providers? (2, Interesting)

NewsWatcher (450241) | more than 10 years ago | (#7665035)

I currently have a Hotmail account. One of the things that annoys me is that emails from Microsoft can't be blocked by the internal filter. They always seems to be writing to me, to alert me to the fact that if I pay I can get more features. This to my way of thinking is spam. Will this be blocked? If it is, what does it mean for emails that alert me to the fact that my inbox is nearing its limit? Will they be forced to start deleting my emails if I go over limit without warning because they will be banned for alerting me. I know, I know, I shouldn't even bother with Hotmail, but sometimes it is useful to have web-based email addresses, and this type of issue will surely affect all mail providers.

Everyone needs to install Seed Spambots. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7665041)

Now that it's a federal offense to harvest addresses from the web, I've just updated Seed Spambots to embed more IP/epoch in the email addresses.

Freshmeat Page []

Freshmeat hasn't yet updated to 1.02, so the links are out-of-date.

The 1.02 version: demo [] download []
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?