Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

FTC Declares Can-Spam a Success

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Dec 21, 2005 05:25 AM
from the official-report-went-to-my-junk-folder dept.
Spam
TheSixth1 writes "ZDNet is reporting that the FTC announced in a recent report to Congress [PDF Warning] that the Can-Spam act is 'effective in providing protection for consumers.' The report boasts that the substantive provisions of the Act have mandated adoption of a number of commercial email "best practices" that many legitimate online marketers are now following. Second, the Act has provided law enforcement agencies and ISPs with an additional tool to use when bringing suit against spammers. The more than 50 cases brought to date by the FTC, the Department of Justice, state Attorneys General, and ISPs demonstrate CAN-SPAM's enforcement efficacy."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

FTC Declares Can-Spam a Success 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • A success? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by speedplane (552872) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @05:27AM (#14307548) Homepage
    Errr... Last time I checked I was still getting about 50 spam messages a day.
    • Errr... Last time I checked I was still getting about 50 spam messages a day.

      Yes. But now almost 10% of those comply with regulations!
      • Yes. But now almost 10% of those comply with regulations!

        But more importantly, can that 10% help me improve my manhood by 200%... because if so..

        /victory

        • Re:A success? (Score:5, Funny)

          by Inda (580031) <slash.20.inda@spamgourmet.com> on Wednesday December 21 2005, @06:36AM (#14307741) Journal

          50 a day? pffft

          I get 200 a day and you should see the size of my...

          ...spam folder.

          • Re:A success? (Score:5, Informative)

            by buss_error (142273) <buss_errorNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday December 21 2005, @11:59AM (#14310001) Homepage Journal
            50 a day? pffft I get 200 a day and you should see the size of my... ...spam folder.

            The main farm I work in sees - on average - about 150,000 per hour. I filter using an extensive local block list. For instance aside from minor white listings no RIPE, KRNIC, APNIC, LATNIC ip space can email my users. Much of APNIC is in the firewall, so they can't even browse our sites. After that, I use sevearal global block lists.

            At peak, I guetimate over a million spams/viruses/trojans per hour. Normally just before a new worm is announced I'll see someone has turned on the sewer pipe full blast. Desired email runs about 60,000 to 80,000 per day.

            If the FTC wants to say CAN-SPAM works, I'd say I have a lot of offers for amazing pills they should see.

            • The FTC and other government agencies have done fuck-all. A few high profile arrests, but the real credit belongs to us long-suffering and now nearly-mad mail admins who have spent the last five years playing catch-up with these bastards and having to deal with all manner of big, medium and small ISPs who didn't give a shit what was spewing out of their networks. My small ISP spent thousands on hardware and software to fend off spam, and worst of all, distributed dictionary attacks that reached into the m
            • I filter using an extensive local block list. For instance aside from minor white listings no RIPE, KRNIC, APNIC, LATNIC ip space can email my users. Much of APNIC is in the firewall, so they can't even browse our sites.

              So what you're telling me is that that you've elected to block all the registries that do the least amount of good? The vast majority of spam comes from within the US (ARIN) and is directed to English-speaking American consumers. As an avid (sometimes rabid) anti-spammer myself I'd rathe

      • Re:A success? (Score:5, Funny)

        by w3weasel (656289) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @08:42AM (#14308271) Homepage
        pffffft.....
        Broke my back from carrying the "grain of salt" I was trying to take with this statement
    • About 70 percent of the world's e-mail messages continue to be spam. But the number is leveling off, which federal officials on Tuesday cited as evidence that a law enacted two years ago is working.

      I still get messages that I call SPAM. However, those messages have removal links, so the FTC does not consider them to be SPAM. That is why the FTC thinks SPAM is leveling off. In reality, I am receiving more SPAM than I ever did.

      The FTC is a political organization, naturally they are going to declare t

      • Agreed. I work for a large multinational corporation. The December issue of their internal newspaper stated;
        Around 15 million e-mails are received worldwide every month. Only a fifth of them are related to business matters. All other e-mails, 12 million of them, are identified by [company name] as being infected or as spam mails containing advertising.
        In other words, 80% of incoming e-mail is identified as containing SPAM or a Virus! That is a improvement?

  • That explains it... (Score:5, Funny)

    by fmaxwell (249001) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @05:28AM (#14307554) Homepage Journal
    I was wondering why we all stopped getting spam.
    • I was wondering why we all stopped getting spam.

      How could you doubt the government who brought you the DMCA (which has virtually eliminated software and music piracy), capital punishment and gun control (which together have virtually eliminated murder and other violent crime), and mandatory car insurance (which has virtually eliminated insurance industry bankruptcy)?

      I find your lack of faith disturbing.

  • If only they had listened to Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)

    by melonman (608440) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @05:29AM (#14307556) Journal
    ... we'd still be relying on SPEWS to bully innocent bystanders into bullying ISPs into shutting down spammers after the event.

    • Re:If only they had listened to Slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fmaxwell (249001) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @05:56AM (#14307629) Homepage Journal
      ... we'd still be relying on SPEWS to bully innocent bystanders

      By "innocent bystanders," do you mean people helping to finance an ISP which caters to spammers?

      into bullying ISPs into shutting down spammers after the event.

      So you would prefer that the ISPs not shut down spammers?

      You obviously don't understand SPEWS.

      SPEWS does not wait for spam to happen. They list IP blocks which have been repeated sources for spam. If an ISP sells services to spammers, their IP blocks will end up listed on SPEWs. Those using the SPEWS list can block all traffic from that ISP -- including traffic from spammers who will use those IP blocks in the future.

      Before SPEWS, "pink contracts" were becoming all-too common. A pink contract is a contract between an Internet service provider and a spammer in which the spammer is exempted from the usual terms of service prohibiting spamming. Pink contracts came into existence because ISPs could charge the spammer much more than they would a normal client. Such contracts were quite profitable.

      So how do you fight against such practices? You blacklist the ISP's IP blocks. That means that "normal" users will find that the ISP cannot reliably deliver e-mail. Those users will pressure the ISP into not writing pink contracts and not tolerating spamming. A blacklisted ISP will not be able to survive on pink contract revenue alone and, thus, will be forced to stop writing pink contracts in order to remain solvent.

        • Re:If only they had listened to Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)

          by fmaxwell (249001) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @07:17AM (#14307851) Homepage Journal
          Or who have no choice with regards to ISPs because there is only one active in their area?

          So they live with dial-up. If the only provider of cable television in my area is NAMBLA, then I'll live with the seven local broadcast channels rather than give NAMBLA my money.

          Stupid argument, not agreeing to using 'collatoral damage' to force things onto an ISP is not the same as not wanting those ISPs to remove spammers.

          That's not what the OP said. He said "bullying ISPs into shutting down spammers after the event" as if the fact that it was done after the spam was sent was somehow the important point.

          As long as you and other SPEWS proponents cannot see that difference, you will by most be seen as bullies and as doing more damage then good.

          I don't care how I'm seen as long as I'm helping reduce spam. And I've seen no compelling argument to make me believe that SPEWs is ineffective. Quite the contrary. I've seen more and more instances of ISPs refusing to write pink contracts after being listed on SPEWS.

          Hmm, you do not see the similarity to the reasoning of those who justify killing innocent bystanders in order to put pressure on the USA to change its policies?

          I hardly think that someone bouncing your e-mail is akin to killing people. Now you're just being silly.

          You're also missing something important: It's not illegal for me to refuse your e-mail at my server. I can refuse it because your IP address is on SPEWS, because I don't like your ISP, because your sysadmin "dissed" me in a newsgroup, because your IP address has a prime number in it, or because you tried to send the mail during the witching hour. You don't have a legal right to deliver your e-mail to my server.

          On the other hand, SPEWS contributers do have a Constitutionally guaranteed right (free speech and freedom of the press) to publish a list of address blocks which they believe are spam sources. There is nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical about doing that.

          Again, if you've got a better plan than SPEWS, what is it?
        • 80% of spam in the US is sent by Windows PCs that have been infected by an Outlook worm and converted into a zombie spambot. So an idiot customer at my cable ISP shares an IP block with me and his Windows spambot causes my email to be blocked? That's fair.

          Why is your ISP not complying with the FTC's request to block port 25 as part of Operation Spam Zombies [ftc.gov]? I'm sick and tired of dealing with spam from infected home PCs. If you don't have a need to run a mail server, then you don't need port 25 open to th
              • A vigilante is someone who takes, or advocates taking, law enforcement into their own hands.

                Hey, guess what - there are laws against spamming.

                But my main point is that punitive DNS blacklists like SPEWS are ineffective. The people that need to communicate with the blacklisted ISP customer will simply whitelist that customer, even if they use SPEWS. Try telling a customer or client that you won't service their account because SPEWS says their ISP hosts spammers, and so you won't be receiving their emails.

  • There's a precedent... (Score:5, Funny)

    by gowen (141411) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Wednesday December 21 2005, @05:29AM (#14307558) Homepage Journal
    "Mission Accomplished!"

  • It's a start... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Mattygfunk1 (596840) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @05:30AM (#14307562) Homepage
    ...but the county producing the most SPAM is still the US [techwhack.com].

    __
    Adult Funny Videos [laughdaily.com]

    • Re:It's a start... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by soliptic (665417) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @11:22AM (#14309669) Journal
      Damn right. Nearly all the spam I get is from the US. Weird, then, that slashdot is full of American's sneerily proposing the complete blacklist of China.

      Now, you might say "oh but that spam is sent via Chinese zombies" - I don't care - that's irrelevant. What it's selling is from and for Americans; pharmaceuticals, remortaging, qualifications, you name it - it's all very obviously targetted at an American audience. I couldn't make use of any of it, even if I wanted to (which I obviously don't)! I mean, for fuck's sake, my email address ends in .co.uk, you think they'd get a clue...

      • Comes from Florida, anyway. According to my home-grown spam catcher -- for my personal email -- I've received 3455 spams in the past month from the IP range 69.60.96.0 - 69.60.127.255, currently owned by

        OrgName: Infolink Information Services Inc.
        OrgID: IIS-129
        Address: 2400 E Las Olas Blvd.
        City: Fort Lauderdale
        StateProv: FL
        PostalCode: 33301
        Country: US

        This is just the pile I can catch by IP. I've got many others that are caught via Message-Id, subject line, or something else that, if examined, tur

  • Tell it to... (Score:3, Funny)

    by cresquin (852066) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @05:30AM (#14307563) Homepage
    ... the Nigerian who sees it necessary to email me once or twice a day.
  • That's right my favourite type of Spam comes in a can.

  • What TFA didn't tell you... (Score:3, Funny)

    by john83 (923470) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @05:33AM (#14307572) Homepage

    The report boasts that the substantive provisions of the Act have mandated adoption of a number of commercial email "best practices" that many legitimate online marketers are now following. Second, the Act has provided law enforcement agencies and ISPs with an additional tool to use when bringing suit against spammers.

    It then went on to offer Congressmen a pre-approved war loan, before asking for its help in liberating $25,000,000 (TWENTY-FIVE MILLION) from terrorism.

  • Pen0r (Score:5, Funny)

    by DavidLeeRoth (865433) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @05:38AM (#14307586)
    According to my inbox, I could have a penis 4 miles long that can be as thick as a tree. i also have tons of hot 18yo babes just wanting to be with me :) I guess its not spam anymore and its real, the success of this act says so!!

  • Whatever... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dance_Dance_Karnov (793804) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @05:38AM (#14307588) Homepage
    I still get 50 spams or so a day and only 25% or so are even in english.
    • only 25% or so are even in english

      I upgraded to the new GTK2 slypheed-claws and now I have properly rendered chinese or japanese spam. At least that is what I assume it is.

  • Text of letter to Congress (Score:5, Funny)

    by loggia (309962) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @05:42AM (#14307602)
    Members of Congress:

    I am Mrs. Branson, a wife of embattled President of war torn
    Liberia, Mr. Branson. My husband just stepped down as President
    of Liberia some months ago, but matters were not helped when UN
    Special War Crimes Court for Sierra Leone indicted my husband
    for war crimes in June last year, demanding his prosecution.

    Currently I and my husband have been granted asylum in Nigeria,
    but I relocated my two sons immediately in July 2003 to Sao Tome
    (a small oil rich island off the coast of West Africa).

    Early last year, he entrusted some large quantities of diamonds
    to me. He told me if anything happened to him, I should use it
    to take care of myself. Fearing its detection due to the volume,
    my son (Williams) traveled to South-Africa with the diamonds...

  • Success for who? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gujo-odori (473191) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @05:43AM (#14307604)
    I work for one of the major email security companies. I can't say that CAN-SPAM has had much effect at all on spam and the spamming spammers who send it - we see just as much spam as ever, and it's just as obfuscated as ever. If anything, the spammers have evolved to be better at hiding their identities than ever before, to avoid CAN-SPAM prosecution. When the law took effect, zombies were out there, but there were also still a lot of netblocks handed to spammers by providers; now, zombies rule the day and static netblocks used by spammers are becoming rarer all the time. Defined in those terms, CAN-SPAM is a bust.

    However, if you want to define "success" as "Good for us and our competitors, who are all signing up lots of new customers every month and seeing better revenue streams all the time" then yes, CAN-SPAM is a resounding success :-)
    • How about making the advertised company the default responsible party for illegal spam unless they can point at a third party or fraud, isn't it the same thing as fining car owners with traffic cameras? Much of the spam is advertising US companies, US law would be best applied to cut off the source of the $$$$.

  • Next announcement from them will be... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MadCow42 (243108) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @05:44AM (#14307607) Homepage
    "Our new blindfold program has proven effective in preventing the rising and setting of the sun each day. We celebrate the tremendous achievement this program has completed."

    Wow... talk about delusional. :)

    MadCow.

  • Thankfully... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by omeg (907329) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @05:44AM (#14307608)
    My e-mail address has a spam filter on the server, which detects pretty much 98% of all garbage that comes in and labels it [SPAM], which is then sent to my junk mail folder upon download. You can pass a million acts and laws, but it's really things like this that are actually effective.

  • Simpsons Quote... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Elitist_Phoenix (808424) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @05:48AM (#14307617)
    How come it is when I hear the words inept and idiot I immeadiatly think FTC!

  • Title Misleading (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kai.chan (795863) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @05:57AM (#14307639)
    The title of the paper is misleading, it stated that the "FTC staff conducted interviews with 98 individuals," which suggests that with the "enactment of CAN-SPAM, spam volume has begun to decline as has consumer frustration". Of course, the paper is written in such a way that CAN-SPAM was responsible for the "technological and marketplace developments in email since the enactment of CAN-SPAM." In other words, this is nothing but a government agency trying to hide the uselessness of a law they passed by taking credit for the technological advancements that combat spam.
  • At our site we have about 100 users. We get around 65000 messages a day with about 0.5% being real emails. Each day we get email sent to about 4000 different user names. So I guess the can spam act does work after all.

  • How is that a success? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lord sibn (649162) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @06:26AM (#14307714)
    It was never the legitimate online businesses you had to worry about, anyway. The impetus to comply with the law only means increased operating expenses for legitimate businesses, and working overseas for the rest.

  • CAN-SPAM (Score:2, Interesting)

    by thejynxed (831517)
    Man, talk about your misnomers...

    I get just as much spam in my inbox as I did before this useless law. It does absolutely nothing to punish or restrict anyone outside of the United States (or who uses botnets and the like). That coupled with the fact that many commercial retailers bury their stupid opt-out in the bottom of several pages of spamvertisements in their emails (hey, they are technically complying after all) pretty much make this a useless law. Google's filters don't work for shite in this matter

  • Spam damage (Score:3, Funny)

    by Jotii (932365) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @06:34AM (#14307734) Homepage
    What if there actually was a pair of hot 18yo lesbians longing for me? I'd think it was spam and delete it. I'd be spam-damaged.

  • Wow! 50 is a big number... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by un1xl0ser (575642) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @07:09AM (#14307835)
    The more than 50 cases brought to date by the FTC, the Department of Justice, state Attorneys General, and ISPs demonstrate CAN-SPAM's enforcement efficacy.

    Since when did a simple number demonstrate efficiency? They got 50 spammers.. out of how many? 500? 5000? 50,000? Who knows.

    We eliminated the two major drug cartels in town. Great JOB! I'm sure that there won't be even more rising from their ashes, and maybe even a turf war.

    There still is a need for SPAM, so spammers will still exist.
  • It seemed to me that Can Spam was 100% government corruption. A few have been prosecuted, for show. However, spam has increased.

    The purpose of Can Spam was to stop U.S. states from enacting their own legislation. Can Spam made all the laws in the states invalid.
    • 1 year ago 1 spam message per day in my mail, now in the old account 10+ (80% from US, 20% from china, rest of world: NONE) per day. So, yes it is a succes that legal marketeers are keeping the rules. But the legal ones are not the problem, so is the law a succes? No!

    • Re:How to make filtering more effective? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Steve B (42864) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @09:34AM (#14308703) Homepage
      We can't trust too many people with this, of course, because emails from our President would quickly be marked as spam.

      I am GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States. Due to political conditions in my country, I need to transport $100 BILLION DOLLARS US out of the country. I seek your assistance in arranging this bank transaction, and offer a 10 PERCENT ASSSISTANCE FEE in return....

    • Re:Message labs Data for the past year (Score:4, Informative)

      by Malc (1751) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @09:37AM (#14308730)
      I don't have any numbers on the number of valid messages I've received. But I keep all my spam in folders by year so I can train my filters. These are the numbers of spams to my Yahoo address that Yahoo correctly tagged as spam:

      2004: 16,350
      2005: 10,942

      A vast improvement. Maybe Yahoo is accepting fewer spam messages. Or maybe the number of people spamming me has decreased. Or maybe there have been fewer email viruses. Looking at this year's spam folder, it is clear the majority of spam is in multi-byte character set (e.g. Chinese or Korean).

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.