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!

MS Speaks Out Against New Zealand's Anti Spam Bill

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 9 years ago | from the the-only-good-spam-is-a-dead-spam dept.

Spam 334

out_sp0k1n writes "Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group spoke out against New Zealand's proposed anti-spam legislation, warning that it could impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing'. He also suggests that CAN-SPAM has been effective in deterring spammers. From The Article: 'Though often criticized as too meek, US anti-spam legislation - which relies on people opting out of spam - has proved effective in supporting prosecutions and deterring spammers.' Anyone else think that one message doesn't count as spam?"

cancel ×

334 comments

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

FUCK YOU MICRO$OFT! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13374935)

I'm tired of your corporate bullshit!

Re:FUCK YOU MICRO$OFT! (0, Offtopic)

DoorFrame (22108) | more than 9 years ago | (#13374948)

That was just a ROCKING first post! Well done!

Re:FUCK YOU MICRO$OFT! (1)

slughead (592713) | more than 9 years ago | (#13374950)

I'm tired of your corporate bullshit!

You can trust corporations... to be corporations.

If anything, M$ speaking out against something in foreign countries is more likely to have the opposite apparently desired effect.

Re:FUCK YOU MICRO$OFT! (1)

Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS- (624050) | more than 9 years ago | (#13374957)

For once you are right, anti-microsoft troll. Spam is really shitty in how it wastes our most valuable resource: time. Yet Microsoft loves watered-down anti-"spam" bills that are ineffective.

MOD PARENT UP, REPLIES DOWN (1)

SirJaxalot (715418) | more than 9 years ago | (#13374959)

+5 IN$IGHTFUL. Good job, $la$hbot.

oh, so that's why (5, Funny)

omeomi (675045) | more than 9 years ago | (#13374946)

He also suggests that CAN-SPAM has been effective in deterring spammers.

Oh, so that's why I don't get any spam any more...

Well, off to clean my Inbox of spam.

Tom

Re:oh, so that's why (5, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375012)

> > He also suggests that CAN-SPAM has been effective in deterring spammers.
>
> Oh, so that's why I don't get any spam any more...
>
> Well, off to clean my Inbox of spam.

That's not spam, those are amazing offers to which you just haven't opted out yet! Haven't you listened to Gator, uh, Claria, uh, the new Microsoft Secure Safety Technology that gives you access to the Amazing Vehicle of E-Mail Marketing?

In other news today, Microsoft executives report that dipping your balls in sweet cream and squatting in a kitchen full of kittens may be hazardous to your health.

Re:oh, so that's why (5, Funny)

omeomi (675045) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375043)

In other news today, Microsoft executives report that dipping your balls in sweet cream and squatting in a kitchen full of kittens may be hazardous to your health.

Phew. I was just about to do that...good thing you stopped me.

Re:oh, so that's why (1)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375239)

He didn't stop you, Microsoft's Unsolicited Amazing E-mail Advice stopped you.

The bill's in the (e)-mail. We expect payment promptly.

Re:oh, so that's why (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13375196)

Until we begin executing spammers on prime time TV, this crap will continue.

Too meek... (4, Funny)

Nuclear Elephant (700938) | more than 9 years ago | (#13374947)

Though often criticized as too meek, US anti-spam legislation - which relies on people opting out of spam - has proved effective in supporting prosecutions and deterring spammers

Well the first draft, which involved a carving knife and a band-aid, would have been more effective.

Good to see (1)

Kawahee (901497) | more than 9 years ago | (#13374949)

It's nice to see normal Asia-Pacific area's being on the cutting edge of spam fighting. And it's nice to see MS recognise NZ.

Re:Good to see (1)

Citizen Gold (540740) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375244)

MS recognized NZ years ago. I've run an MS free zone at home for about 5 years now but before then I'm sure I recall seeing "English (NZ)" as a language option in MS Office...

That's the idea. (5, Insightful)

hungrygrue (872970) | more than 9 years ago | (#13374955)

warning that it could impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing'.
So their warning is basically that it might work?

Re:That's the idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13375167)

Yes and the spammer^w owner of listbuilder and bcentral doesn't want that. If any readers were dim-witted enough to have taken the comments Gates made about spam last year at face value, it's time to wean yourself off the kool-aid.

What Gates really meant was this;

We want to stamp out spam, we'll do this by rebranding it as legitimate MSSpam and collect a royalty on every message. Please upgrade exchange and start using senderID because it's the only way we could think off to get a wide reaching, royalty generating patent on email.

Of course you don't actually have any choice because Microsoft and it's ESP partners are, at arms length, funding spamming and phishing networks in order to crush the existing SMTP system. It just sucks to be you.

Love,

Bill

PS: if you think our software's bad, wait until you try our penis enlargers

Microsoft follows the money? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13374958)

I never get how anyone can ever use the argument that some people might "want" spam. If you want to buy something, you can find it on the net. I NEVER want to be inundated with junk adverts.

Mailinator [mailinator.com] lets me avoid getting spam in the first place. Good luck microsoft.

Thank You For Letting Me Know About Your Product! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13375144)

I never get how anyone can ever use the argument that some people might "want" spam. If you want to buy something, you can find it on the net. I NEVER want to be inundated with junk adverts.

[Unsolicited endorsement for product that supposedly eliminates unsolicited endorsments via email, eliminated]

Err... Me too?

Re:Microsoft follows the money? (4, Insightful)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375169)

I never get how anyone can ever use the argument that some people might "want" spam. If you want to buy something, you can find it on the net. I NEVER want to be inundated with junk adverts.
Marketer brains are totally out of whack with reality. They operate not only in a different universe, but in a totally orthogonal plane of reality. It is therefore not surprising that they cannot understand nor fathom the motivations of normal people who are sick and tired of advertising being plastered all over the available meatspace.

Re:Microsoft follows the money? (4, Insightful)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375221)

It is therefore not surprising that they cannot understand nor fathom the motivations of normal people who are sick and tired of advertising being plastered all over the available meatspace.

The cleverer ones do understand this, which is why they're trying to poison word-of-mouth recommendations as well (see: astroturfing).

Spam is spam (5, Insightful)

JesseL (107722) | more than 9 years ago | (#13374960)

If it's unsolicited then it's spam. If you give spammers one freebie then they'll just form a new corporation every time they want to send a new batch of crap.

I don't care if they send me 'just one' or a million, either way it is infintley more than I want.

Re:Spam is spam (3, Insightful)

TheOtherAgentM (700696) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375070)

I see a problem with this thinking, not for most Slashdotters, but the average user doesn't even know what he subscribes to as far as mailing lists go. When I get email I think about where I have bought stuff from recently, to make sure I didn't forget to opt out of something. I give that vendor the benefit of the doubt. Most users out there won't think twice and legitimate operations are going to come under fire. While they may not shut down, the costs to prove they are in the right is a waste of their time. This may effectively raise operating costs of any operation that relies on email to do its marketing.

Re:Spam is spam (4, Insightful)

JesseL (107722) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375102)

Companies that don't want that hassle can make it very explicit when you sign up for their mailing list. They should make sure that the default option on their web forms is not to subscribe, and their email should be explicit about how you got opted in.

Here's a big clue, IF YOU DON'T MAKE SPAMMING DIFFICULT IT WON'T STOP.

Re:Spam is spam (1)

Penguin Programmer (241752) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375233)

An opt-out system works great if you get one spam a day. However, if you get 100 spam a day, as many of us do, there's no way you're going to actually look at each one, find the opt-out link, and trust that the opt-out link will actually opt you out and not just reveal that someone actually exists at your email address.

The opt-out system works fine for telemarketers because you have to answer the phone or risk missing an important call. For email, I don't have to look at ones I know are spam, so an opt-out system is stupid and useless.

& opposition from Microsoft is a "seal of qual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13375093)

If it's unsolicited then it's spam.
And around here many will also agree (for good reasons) that any law opposed by Microsoft is endowed with a presumption of merit.

Re:Spam is spam (1)

JanneM (7445) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375115)

If it's unsolicited then it's spam.

Well, if it's uncolicited and it is bulk. I.e. if an unknown person emails me to take contact (after seeing a picture of mine or something, for example) then that's obviously fine. The problem is mass emailings.

What I find amazing is that at least some places restrict it to _commercial_ bulk email. I frankly don't care who is sending the crap, I just want to get rid of it.

Re:Spam is spam (1)

JesseL (107722) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375135)

Point taken.

Hell, I don't even like it when a family member get's ahold of my address and adds it to their inane ('joke of the day'/sappy inspirational message) cc list.

can't can spam (4, Funny)

dankelley (573611) | more than 9 years ago | (#13374964)

"He also suggests that CAN-SPAM has been effective in deterring spammers"

Yeah, right. And there's this swamp land you might want to buy.

Re:can't can spam (1)

lrucker (621551) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375210)

Yeah, right. And there's this swamp land you might want to buy.

Funny you should mention that. Today's NYTimes [nytimes.com] has an article about people paying California prices for Florida swampland:

homes in a design proudly called "Cracker Modern" will sit on lots of up to four acres lots near marshes, creeks and conservation areas, ... average $342,900 for the land alone.

Wait, Wait, Don't Lie To Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13374965)

Is this a Lie, a Weasel, a Leasel, or *shudder* true?

Credit goes to Al Frankin [airamericaradio.com] .

Do Not Call List (2, Insightful)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 9 years ago | (#13374966)

Gee, the proposed law seems to me to work very much like the do not call list of telemarketing. I.E. Do not call unless you've been asked. That works better than voluntary do not spam lists don't you think?

Re:Do Not Call List (3, Insightful)

TheOtherAgentM (700696) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375011)

The problem is that much of the spam out there is sent illegally. There is no care for who wants in or not with these guys. Sending from a remote, infected machine takes care of sending from your own server and being identified. So, we don't get mail from mailserver.com, but we get mail from every infected computer on XO's broadband and other ISPs that don't seem to care about the spam out there.

It's not Law Yet, But M$ Lost (2, Informative)

tonyr60 (32153) | more than 9 years ago | (#13374972)

The proposed law draft, as it goes forward for consideration, does not reflect Microsoft's requirements. A single unsolicited email from an organisation touting their products will be considered SPAM.

Re:It's not Law Yet, But M$ Lost (2, Insightful)

KiltedKnight (171132) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375208)

So then when you purchase something, you'd have to "opt in" to a mailing list... meaning, if you check the box, fill in an e-mail address on a registration card for something other than warranty purposes, they can send you anything they like.

Sale of their list(s) to other companies would be illegal unless you "opt in."

"Unsolicited" e-mails about your product and possible defects do not count, as you expect the company to notify you of recalls, usability issues, etc.

I, like an earlier poster, can't imagine anyone wanting to opt in. That's probably why a lot of the stuff coming out of US-based companies tell you to "uncheck here if you do not wish to receive...." It's how they capture those who don't pay attention.

Impinging for fun and profit! (1, Funny)

Lord_Slepnir (585350) | more than 9 years ago | (#13374974)

warning that it could impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing'.

What follows is my train of thought:

Impinge? Are they making things up now?

Correction: Impinge is a cromulent word.

Baring the sarcasm, I'm also concerned that laws outlawing murder will impinge (I'm learning new vocab!) on the amazing industry of selective human elimination services.

Re:Impinging for fun and profit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13375002)

Get a dictionary. Not their fault that you don't know English.

Re:Impinging for fun and profit! (1)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375025)

Words like these embiggen even the smallest article. :)

Re:Impinging for fun and profit! (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375278)

Impinge is a perfectly normal english word...

Google afrees [google.com]

It's not cromulent at all.

Just Curious... (0, Redundant)

bobsacks (784382) | more than 9 years ago | (#13374981)

Has anyone on here actually ever bought anything from one of these mass market emails? I myself haven't, and I don't know anyone off hand who has. What I wonder is how they stay in business. Money has to be coming in from somewhere.

Re:Just Curious... (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375056)

Has anyone on here actually ever bought anything from one of these mass market emails? ...What I wonder is how they stay in business. Money has to be coming in from somewhere."

How many do you think they have to sell to be profitable?

Spam is virtually free to send, and their overhead is practically nil.

Sure, there's only a small chance that someone might buy their product... but I bet they'll be able to sell their list of valid addresses to spammers that have 'real' products, such as marketing surveys, etc.

Re:Just Curious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13375104)

There has to be an overhead to creating and maintaining the botnets spammers use. From paying the virus writers to taking precautions to avoid getting caught (secure telephones and such) to the time taken to craft a virus and release it without getting caught there is going to be an overhead in time as well as money.

Re:Just Curious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13375081)

Sure! First of all, I got rich thanks to a favour I did to a certain nigerian guy.

Besides, herbal penis enlargement pills worked (too) well [sorry, Rocco]. I still don't need the Viagra stuff but I'm sure it will be a nice investment.

Spam is Qt, man!

CAN-SPAM effective? (5, Interesting)

Elias Ross (1260) | more than 9 years ago | (#13374984)


Can anybody point to any research (or, frankly pundit or blogger) that has concluded that CAN-SPAM has had any effect at all? So far, it sounds like CAN-SPAM has bene "toothless", made "zero impact", etc.

Re:CAN-SPAM effective? (4, Insightful)

javaxman (705658) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375038)

So far, it sounds like CAN-SPAM has bene "toothless", made "zero impact", etc.

Are you sure it hasn't actually "made the problem worse" by giving spam an air of legitimacy?

Re:CAN-SPAM effective? (1, Insightful)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375179)

giving spam an air of legitimacy
And TV, Billboard, Radio , Film and Hommy Tilfiger Logos on cloths don't have exactly the same effect?

I'm not saying I support spam, just that spam is another form of advertising. If other forms of advertising come unsolicited from companies.
Why is spam any worse than someone wearing a krappa t-shirt, drinking a can of Koke and eating a MukDonalds, why is spam any worse than traditional junk mail?

Re:CAN-SPAM effective? (1)

georgewad (154339) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375227)

because YOU pay for the bandwidth they THEY use to market to you.

Re:CAN-SPAM effective? (1)

phalanx (94532) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375232)

Because I pay for the space in my Email Box the spammer doesn't. All of these others don't cost me anything to witness in a public place. This is the reason telemarketers shouldn't call a cell phone before the DO NOT CALL list was started.

Re:CAN-SPAM effective? (1)

MTTECHYBOY (799778) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375112)

I don't know - the only effect I have seen is a INCREASE in SPAM - but, maybe that is really what the 'bought and paid for' Senators and Congressmen intended...

Dear Microsoft (with help from R. B. Cheney*) +5 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13374985)

Go fuck yourself.

Seditiously sincere,
Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.

* R. B. Cheney is currently the Acting President Of The United Gulags of America [whitehouse.org]

What's up with his title? (5, Funny)

Nuclear Elephant (700938) | more than 9 years ago | (#13374986)

Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group

Is it just me or does his title sound like the Microsoft equivalent of an airline stewardess? And how come everyone we hear from Microsoft is the head of something? Were they all promised head to come work at Microsoft?

Re:What's up with his title? (5, Insightful)

Maax (223760) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375055)

The Departments of Truth, Peace and Love would have been just too much of a give away.

Re:What's up with his title? (1)

Nuclear Elephant (700938) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375074)

The Departments of Truth, Peace and Love would have been just too much of a give away.

It would not surprise me if somewhere at Microsoft there were a head of the "department of homepage security".

Re:What's up with his title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13375101)

A random search on Google found this amusing website:

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2004/fngr1.shtml [idleworm.com]

"The Department of Homepage Security in cooperation with Microsoft, has developed a method to fingerprint people using their monitors."...

Silly, but amusing.

Re:What's up with his title? (1)

WillyMF1 (867862) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375138)

Were they all promised head to come work at Microsoft?

Hire me!!! Hire me!!!
oh wait. You just mean a job title. Never mind.

Re:What's up with his title? (1)

burndive (855848) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375238)

I think they prefer the term 'flight attendant.'

Re:What's up with his title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13375287)

The title Head of the Department of Rape and Pillage was already taken.

That's how I read it. (4, Insightful)

Swamii (594522) | more than 9 years ago | (#13374989)

Ryan Longfellow, head of Bigandlong's Technology Care and Safety Survey spoke out against New Rolex's proposed anti-spam legislation, warning that it could imflate on 'the amazing effects of Viagra'.

He also suggests that his product has been effective in enlarging members from 100% to 200%.

From The Article: 'Though often criticized as too meek, click here for a free IPod - which relies on people starting their own home business - has proved effective in supporting the former great king of Nimbabwatsu' through verification of you PayPal account.

So I wont' be receiving XP patches by mail again? (2, Informative)

CapnGrunge (233552) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375000)

Opt-in or out are crap anyway, but opt-in doesn't have the catch of unsubscribing.

Wonderful Spam (3, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375001)

When Microsoft gets CAN-SPAM, instead of the people of a country getting real spam protection, Microsoft gets to sue spammers on behalf of their customers for damages. Even after getting revenue from spammers, and selling antispamware that doesn't work so good. And buying Gator, the infamous spammer. Microsoft doesn't want the government protecting you or your privacy from spammers. Because Microsoft takes on the job, privatizing privacy, they get paid every which way. And we get spam out our pieholes.

Translation: If MSFT doesn't make money on it (2, Insightful)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375026)

We won't support it.

The "support" services sector to "stop spam" is very lucrative, just as the "anti-piracy" services sector to "stop virii and worms" is very lucrative.

If someone did something about spam, people might not buy the planned Microsoft Anti-Spyware product that's in beta now, when they'll be made to pay for it on release.

And thus, MSFT can't support a bill that might harm their market share.

Sigh.

Re:Translation: If MSFT doesn't make money on it (3, Insightful)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375097)

When you think about it, this story, and the fact that it is considered news, is actually rather funny - or disturbing, depending on how you look at it.

Why does it matter what M$ thinks about a proposed new anti-spam bill - or any bill, for that matter? Shouldn't the only thing that matters be what the *people* of New Zealand think?

Re:Translation: If MSFT doesn't make money on it (1)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375280)

Why does it matter what M$ thinks about a proposed new anti-spam bill - or any bill, for that matter?

Shouldn't the only thing that matters be what the people of New Zealand think?
Just ask e.g. the peoples of Denmark, Poland and the Netherlands [nosoftwarepatents.com] .

It's actually just disturbing, or sad - (except for utter sarcasm [nosoftwarepatents.com] ) there is no fun in these affairs whatsoever.

No (0, Troll)

mnemonic_ (164550) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375031)

FIND THEM AND DESTROY THEM!

In other news, Microsoft sues 235 spammers (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13375034)

Meanwhile, Left Hand continues to disclaim all knowledge of rumors of the existence of so-called "Right Hand"

Re:In other news, Microsoft sues 235 spammers (2, Insightful)

FragHARD (640825) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375121)

Well it's pretty obvious what m$ wants... they see all that lovely money going into the hands of someone other than themselves namely the spammers. Why else wouldn't they want to get rid of spam? because if they eliminate spam then they cannot profit from it!

As a kiwi (5, Insightful)

simonharvey (605068) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375035)

As a New Zealander I am surprised that the government is showing this much common sense:

"Mr Cunliffe says Microsoft's proposed "opt out" approach is too weak and has been rejected.
"We decided it's going to be opt-in. End of story. Why should you have to opt out of spam?"


And that common sense is prevailing over US law.
*duck*

Simon

Re:As a kiwi (1)

The Angry Mick (632931) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375109)

And that common sense is prevailing over US law.

The U.S. government doesn't really lack common sense; just backbone.

For a lot of elected officials its a question of who can pay more for their services, the average Joe, or corporate America?

Re:As a kiwi (1)

St0rmward3n (908761) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375172)

I second that :) As a New Zealander I'd love to see this bill come into effect.

Yeah? Well as an American (3, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375248)

As an America, I'd love to see this bill come into effect too. The fewer havens for spammers the better.

How would you handle this under anti-spam? (4, Interesting)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375053)

Here's one very basic, very common problem anti-spam legislation doesn't solve.

1) Someone registers your email at ACME's web site.
2) ACME wants to know if you are legit or not, so they send you a "please click on this link if you really requested this" email.
3) You didn't request email from ACME, but now you have an "are you you?" email from ACME.

Is the "please click on this link" email spam?

If so, what should ACME do to verify you are you instead?

If not, what's to stop a spammer from sending their advert along with the "click to confirm" email? (I know, they already do.)

Re:How would you handle this under anti-spam? (1)

TheOtherAgentM (700696) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375120)

That's an excellent point. What if I mail the wrong person accidentally? Sure, I am not going to get convicted of anything, but think about the time if someone wants me investigated. It's not just my time and resources, but the time and resources to look into it.

Re:How would you handle this under anti-spam? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13375129)

Don't allow anything outside the "this is an e-mail verifying that you agreed to sign up to receive emails from ". if there is other content in there, e.g. saying

"We are checking that you want to receive e-mail from , about their super product . For more info on , click here"

would be spam.

Re:How would you handle this under anti-spam? (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375159)

That sounds like an RFC just begging to be written...

Re:How would you handle this under anti-spam? (1, Insightful)

JanneM (7445) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375131)

If so, what should ACME do to verify you are you instead?

I rather believe that is ACME's problem if their opt-in method doesn't in fact work. "I couldn't figure out a way to do what I wanted legally" is generally not seen as an excellent defense.

How about ACME do not send promotional email until they have solved this?

Re:How would you handle this under anti-spam? (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375149)

How about ACME do not send promotional email until they have solved this? I never said "promotional email"...try bending your mind around something like the "confirm your email" your favorite nerd sites (Slashdot included) send...

Re:How would you handle this under anti-spam? (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375204)

If so, what should ACME do to verify you are you instead?
They don't. They can't. That's precisely the idea: stop spamming dead on it's tracks. Once companies will be able to legally send a "first post" to anyone at all without prior approval, the slightest smidgeon of spamming will be illegal, and therefore prosecutable.

The idea is to make companies scared to death of the concept of using e-mail for advertising.

Let technology kill spam, not the government (1)

ev3nly (261504) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375060)

As much as I hate spam as the next guy, it's wrong to let the government get involved with it. A technology to prevent spam will take care of the problem much better then the government ever can and do we really want the government tell us what we can and can't do with our emails?

Re:Let technology kill spam, not the government (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375142)

Sure, just like technology prevented telemarketers from calling after 9 PM.

The profit incentive (on both sides of the fence, both marketing and anti-spam tech) is to allow Spam to occur, so it will continue if allowed.

This comes at a loss of productivity (economic standpoint) and quality of life (social standpoint), which are bad.

The issue of free speech, however, is quite different. I completely agree with you, that the government should not be allowed to impinge on our right to email what we want.

The answer then, is that we trade the inconvenience of receiving Spam for the right to send our own Spam.

I believe that, over time, Spam will drop to a manageable level, due to private anti-Spam software. Just like snail mail, I'll toss my junk mail without opening it -- or downloading to my local host.

Oh, wait, this is my situation now -- and it works fine for me.

Re:Let technology kill spam, not the government (1)

Drishmung (458368) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375145)

Excellent idea. Alas, no such technology has thus far been forthcoming, nor is there any sign that one is imminent. This despite the very real financial (and other) incentives to develop it.

So, while waiting for a Deus ex machina, I'm all for pursuing other avenues, as well.

Re:Let technology kill spam, not the government (1)

darxyde (607706) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375185)

Well, isn't it obvious that technology isn't taking care of the problem? It's sad and typical that techs need their hands held by government bodies to take action. NZ's initiative is well overdue, and more power to them.

It would be nice if admins implemented simple things like SPF, reverse lookups, helo checks etc. to qualify the crap that arrives at thier MTA's but it doesn't happen on any useful scale. SMTP is fundamentally flawed, and what's the IT circle jerk doing about it?

sorry Mr Technology - you failed.

Re:Let technology kill spam, not the government (1)

JesseL (107722) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375195)

Normally, I'd agree with you. Unfortunatley the government has already made it illegal to apply the most appropriate technologies to spammers.

Re:Let technology kill spam, not the government (1)

JanneM (7445) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375214)

As much as I hate spam as the next guy, it's wrong to let the government get involved with it. A technology to prevent spam will take care of the problem much better then the government ever can and do we really want the government tell us what we can and can't do with our emails?

As much as I hate murder as the next guy, it's wrong to let the government get involved with it. A technology to prevent murder will take care of the problem much better then the government ever can and do we really want the government tell us what we can and can't do with our weapons?

In other News (1)

OnceDark (155468) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375065)

Korean president Kim Jong-il's response to the NRC was "Why give up the amazing human killing devices that are nuclear bombs?"

You couldn't be more right. (1)

robyannetta (820243) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375069)

QUOTE: Anyone else think that one message doesn't count as spam?

You couldn't be more right. If you allow one, you allow

<dr_evil>
      ONE BILLION
</dr_evil>

more spam emails a day.

Sounds like microsoft... (1)

Geak (790376) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375075)

...is planning on taking over the spam industry next. Doesn't suprise me after they removed Claria from their list of spyware in their anti-spyware product. Guess they intend to buy up a bunch of spam companies and take them off their SecureID list for hotmail. Next they will be buying out black hat hackers and writing viruses to send out over the internet. Notice their new anti-virus tool?

NZ ISP's have blocked his announcement as spam (1)

Prototerm (762512) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375078)

Well, if they haven't yet, they surely will soon. (to which Will replied "Don't call me Shirley")

What complete bovine feces (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13375083)

Quote: He also wants definitions in the bill changed so that companies would be able to e-mail information about new products and services to customers, even if they had opted out of receiving e-mail about other services they had bought from the company in the past.

I'm sorry, but UBE (Unsolicited Bulk E-mail) is still UBE, even if there is a prior business relationship. Various US companies got well and truly slapped in the past for trying that, and it still doesn't fly today.

Unsoliticied e-mail is still unsolicited e-mail, no matter what the excuse is.

The position M$ is taking on this is complete B.S.

There's a better idea... (4, Interesting)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375090)

There is a better idea, and here it is.

Why not create legislation requiring all commercial e-mail to have HOW they got your e-mail address in the first place, under penalty of a huge fine. This would be in addition to any other laws in place. So if someone doesn't say, at the bottom of the e-mail, how or where your e-mail address was obtained, it would be illegal. Also, lying about where they got it would be illegal too.

Or is this just a stupid idea?

Re:There's a better idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13375194)

Or is this just a stupid idea?

Yes. Next question..

Can live without it (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375124)

impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing'.

I can live without this amazing invention -- especially because I'm not making any money from it -- just aggravation.

Some people just truly don't have a clue.

Duh! (4, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375153)

Microsoft makes money by providing Spam filtering and by suing spammers under CAN-SPAM. Anybody that expects Microsoft to be in favor of anything that reduces one or more of their revenue streams is obviously delusional.

if spam were like snail mail (1)

dlt074 (548126) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375160)

i'd just reply to sender and cost them money. via used bandwidth. unfortunately most spam never has a real reply-to address. when i get snail mail credit card offers with postage paid envelopes i like to fill them with other credit card companies offers and mail them back costing them money. it doesn't do anything but make me feel better and cost them a little money. but if enough people did it... they'd have to rethink their model.
does MS make any money from spam? it can't be that much if they do. is there not a market they have their fingers in?

LSD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13375177)

So is this guy doing some serious drugs or what?

Guess MicroSquishies only chance to not get buried by negative publicity for this is to fire the guy with extreme prejudice, then bury the body in the Marianis Trench in a lead casket.

Talk about a major case of athletes tongue.

I don't get it. (1)

munpfazy (694689) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375186)

I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but this just doesn't make sense.

What does Microsoft have to gain by crippling anti-spam regulation? They don't spam, and as far as I know they don't actively partner with those who do. Wouldn't it be in their own best interest to push for *more* aggressive anti spam tactics?

It would be naive to assume a rational basis for most business decisions, but when an otherwise publicity-savvy company steps forward to fight for something which is not only stupid but also wildly unpopular, there's got to be some explanation.

Lots of people don't think one message is spam (1)

btempleton (149110) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375190)

Including of course, those who were around for the original definition of the term, based on the endless repetition of "spam, spam, spam, spam..." in the MP sketch. From the start it was always the volume of messages that was the issue.

This is in fact however an issue of much debate, with many people on both sides, sometimes called the UBE side and the UCE side. I'm on the UBE side (in fact I think the best and simplest definition for spam is 'bulk mail from a stranger') and there are many on that side.

The truth is it's not hard to show mathematically that non-bulk mail, even of the most annoying kind, won't ever become a problem worth spending much worry on. Since we want to be sure we protect individual person to person mail from any collateral damage in the fight against spam, it seems misplaced to worry about more than bulk mail.

Some essays relating to that question:

http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/2camps.html [templetons.com]

http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/define.html [templetons.com]

Lots of people don't think one message is spam? (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375235)

The truth is it's not hard to show mathematically that non-bulk mail, even of the most annoying kind, won't ever become a problem worth spending much worry on. Since we want to be sure we protect individual person to person mail from any collateral damage in the fight against spam, it seems misplaced to worry about more than bulk mail.

Well, as someone who has some pages that show up in Chinese and Taiwanese and Hong Kong and Russian search engines, I can say that when you think of only 25 million people being online, the concept of one message being spam sounds silly.

But I get spam from India, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Russia, and a bunch of other places, so the idea of 6,000,000,000 people all being able to send one message may not be spam to you, but it sure the heck is spam to ME!

It's the "it's ok so long as just I'm doing it" concept that created spam in the first place. Back when UseNet was fresh and 300 baud modems were fast, it wasn't an issue if someone posted that they wanted to sell their car for $800 or best offer, cause there weren't many of us on it.

But now that all you unwashed masses are online, it's a really big irritation, and why half of the 100 emails I get every day are spam.

I want.... (1)

varmittang (849469) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375202)

What he's smoking! =)

Microsoft serious about squashing SPAM? (5, Insightful)

Eric Damron (553630) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375217)

"Mr Hamlin says Microsoft would like to see the bill changed so that businesses could be confident they could continue to use databases that they had already compiled to send out e-mail."
i.e. So that businesses could continue to SPAM.
"He also wants definitions in the bill changed so that companies would be able to e-mail information about new products and services to customers, even if they had opted out of receiving e-mail about other services they had bought from the company in the past."
So if I tell a company that I don't want their penis enlargement ads they can SPAM me with an ad for their latest p0rn and so on and so on and. . ."
"Though often criticised as too meek, US anti-spam legislation - which relies on people opting out of spam - has proved effective in supporting prosecutions and deterring spammers, he says."
Right, that's why my filters catch move SPAM every month than the previous. It's only the filtering technology that keeps email usable.

Is Microsoft really serious about squashing SPAM or just in finding another cow to milk? What was this I heard about Microsoft wanting to buy the company that use to be called Gator? Seems to me that SPAM and AD ware go hand in hand.

One e-mail = SPAM? (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375218)

Of course, receiving one e-mail might not...

but what if 10,000 companies send you ONLY ONE e-mail each?

We have to be strict, gentlemen. ONE rat might not be a plague, but...

Information Week tokes MS crack pipe (1)

pdmoderator (63509) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375241)

US magazine Information Week last week reported that there are signs spam is "nowhere near the problem it was a few years ago", in part because of filtering technology.


Correct. Spam [circleid.com] is [windowsitpro.com] far [com.com] worse [thewhir.com] than it was a few years ago.

Monsieur, it's "just one" wafer thin leetle spam.. (1)

dennypayne (908203) | more than 9 years ago | (#13375276)

Sure, everybody trusts the spammer who sends you "just one" email to take you off his list when you reply, right? Right.

I say more power to those who are pushing for zero tolerance.

Denny
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?