Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

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 06:25 AM
from the official-report-went-to-my-junk-folder dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • A success? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by speedplane (552872) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @06:27AM (#14307548) Homepage
    Errr... Last time I checked I was still getting about 50 spam messages a day.
  • by fmaxwell (249001) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @06:28AM (#14307554) Homepage Journal
    I was wondering why we all stopped getting spam.
    • by lheal (86013) <lheal1999@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday December 21 2005, @07:04AM (#14307659) Homepage Journal
      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.

  • by melonman (608440) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @06:29AM (#14307556) Journal
    ... we'd still be relying on SPEWS to bully innocent bystanders into bullying ISPs into shutting down spammers after the event.
    • by fmaxwell (249001) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @06:56AM (#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.

        • by fmaxwell (249001) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @08:17AM (#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?
  • by gowen (141411) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Wednesday December 21 2005, @06:29AM (#14307558) Homepage Journal
    "Mission Accomplished!"
  • It's a start... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Mattygfunk1 (596840) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @06:30AM (#14307562) Homepage
    ...but the county producing the most SPAM is still the US [techwhack.com].

    __
    Adult Funny Videos [laughdaily.com]
  • Pen0r (Score:5, Funny)

    by DavidLeeRoth (865433) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @06:38AM (#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!!
  • by loggia (309962) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @06:42AM (#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, @06:43AM (#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 :-)
  • by MadCow42 (243108) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @06:44AM (#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.
  • by Elitist_Phoenix (808424) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @06:48AM (#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, @06:57AM (#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.
  • by lord sibn (649162) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @07:26AM (#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.
  • 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.
    • by Steve B (42864) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @10:34AM (#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....

    • by Malc (1751) on Wednesday December 21 2005, @10:37AM (#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).