SPAMMING and Internet LAW

In short, all Internet traffic costs borne by the recipients rather than the initiators are subject to abuse. The logical fix would then be to change the billing so that initiators bear the cost. The key advantages of the Internet are maintained, the key advantage to the spammer is eliminated.

As for recipient control, the solution may be the same as often recommended for security. Begin with an exclude all, and then allow receipt on an approval basis. The email filtering becomes one of acceptance instead of rejection.

Or is it preferrable to pass responsibility over to governments? Will laws against "annoying" behavior online set precedents for laws against annoying behavior in other situations? Will enforcement costs exceed what billing on a per message sent basis would cost? Is it smart to allow any authority to determine what is or is not spam on behalf of us all?

I have my perspective, but wonder what the rest of you think.

When employee productivity is correctly measured then I am prepared to clarify why these elements: server space, employee time and virus scans are trivial elements that are immediately removed with better inter-relationship between governments, IT professional, businesses and customers to retain the primal reason of the Internet. ?Internet advertising? or to make it look dirty ?SPAM E-MAIL? is a very positive marketing technique, but rather than diminishing the playing field, why not maintain its flexibility.

There is ?NO OBLIGATION TO BUY?.

If ISP/ASPs are prepared to charge their clients for sending ?Advertising e-mails? then fine, no objections, but to deny this form of ?advertising is inappropriate since it defeats the purpose ofthe Internet.

Small businesses are affected as CNN reports, but the ISP/ASPs governance, in an official manor, must be responsible since they can offer the technology resources with the added value services, not government.

CNN has reported that there is highcost to large companies associated to ?SPAMMING?. Nevertheless, employees are reduced to cut cost but technology can be implemented to enhance the workplace ethics. Yes, that high cost presented, is due to inefficient ways of configuring collaboration environments. SMEs can fall through this loop, as collaboration servers may be too highly priced.

Splitting between Public and Private e-mail services, the ISP/ASP is the common factor. With Public Spamming Boards and better-achieved technologyimplementation efficiency, we can charge senders at a low cost. By sending ?light notes? to notify subscribed PSB users. Placing a standard format to ?light notes?, means catching the ?spam e-mail? is made easier, and as I see this as an improved option rather than authorities, indeed not allowing technology to offer ALL, the Internet.

Business and e-mail

How many businesses large and small that own their domain name and host private e-mail servers?

In earlier posts, I stated that businesses are under using their collaboration environment and this remains true.

As ?SPAM E-MAIL? presently stands, businesses can dramatically reduce their so-called high costs generated by ?Internet Advertising?. So, that high cost is left to be re-assessed, since with governance approach that incorporates the five currencies as posted here on TR would never generate that ?quoted cost?. At such ?quoted cost?, I would gladly build a PSB for my company, allowing all to use a single e-mail address, to centralize the incoming ?SPAM?. If SPAM E-MAIL reaches a PSB, then the entire company is ?Hit?, both sides are content.

Let us examine businesses that can afford and do use collaboration environments. Some of these companies have e-mail sweepers (PS: virus scanners are not for keeping spam e-mail out). Regardless of the recipientor sender, all e-mail transmitted between entities must be scanned for ?malicious intended? content or purpose that will impact your business in all presented circumstances.

ISPs forward ?mail to business network.
Business knows what is ?business content? and all can be determined with clear and precise internal policies.
Exchange collaboration server, for instance, have all that is need to quarantine ?spam e-mail?. Domino Lotus also!

But there is still an issue for those companies who ONLY have e-mail servers.

Nevertheless, BUSINESS e-mail addresses must be separated from PERSONAL e-mail addresses. Why do we combine? Open for discussion.

Since, single proprietorships and the like exist, they can purchase PSB subscription as an added value service.

Most companies have curtailed e-mail quantity as though it is an effective deterrent to better e-mail usage. I?ll tell you that management is convinced that by reducing mailbox size, it is a valid option to reduce overall cost, etc.. Wrong approach again. Open for discussion.

Antivirus professional has repeatedly said, that the danger posed by viruses and such like this present ?spam craze? can truly be removed by teaching good practices. But we applaud ?ambiguity? which continues to drive bad IT infrastructure management. We never seem to place the focus at the appropriate cross points.

How many companies allow their employees to send each other e-mails above 5k? Open for discussion.

TSP

Can we really consider spamming a hotmail account a nuisance (sp?). I use my Excite account specifically for sites where I know I'll get a lot of crap. As long as it doens't come to the office, it isn't costing me money. I check Excite mail when I'm free and simply delete MOST email sent there. For sites where you have to get irrelevant newsletters from third paties in order to register, it is OK.
If my users were checking hotmail and excite accounts from the office it would then be MY job to see that they aren't. As I see it, Web based mail is a huge security issue for any office and should be avoided at all costs.

If your company uses GroupWise email, you may ba safer from Viruses but you still get spammed.
Until recently, Beginfinite's GWAVA has been the top tool for reducing GW SPAM (don't even mention that nexic Symphony junk).
Richard Gendron a Netwareprogrammer has coded a great tool call AVSMM that checks for SPAM and uses your existing Inoculate AntiVirus protection to mail headers at the MTA.
GWAVA costs - $1200 CDA per MTA whereas AVSMM is completely free and Mr. Gendron provides phenomenalend user support. http://www.rgendron.com

Now I don't feel this is SPAM because the title has targeted an audience and the product offering is a viable solution for that specific audience.
Oh, I don't get paid for it either. :-)

1. All my 'bigger penis' emails, and I get between 20 and 30 per week, originate from the USA. I have had one from Canada and one from France, but they were both forwarded from US sources.

2. Agreed with your comments but at any time, did I mention 'vagina'?? I was referring to her gagging on it! :-)

Well said, that man!

Hey MaxEdison, you mention Death To Spam, I know it's a common phrase but I actually had a 30 page article on SPAM reduction, laws, disclaimers etc.
It was left behind at NATG a year ago and must have been thrown out by someone. I would love to find it again, have you seen the article or know where I can get another copy?

Posting here but my main concern isn't so much just the spam it's some of the content that's where the problem lies. There are laws preventing companies/indivuldes from delivering kiddy porn to your letter box but noting similar exists in the cyber world and if this type of thing is reported to the Authorities the computer owner is libal for what's on the hard drive not the people who sent the stuff in the first place.

This is one very important area that needs to have some form of legislation in place if only to protect the victum of this unsolicited junk. I find it stupid that you are guilty of an offence when you have nothing to do with the offence other than clearing your e-mailbox. If the same thing was to happen in the real worldthe reciever would not be the one harrassed through the courts but the people responsible for sending the stuff in the first place.

Why is this different for the computer world and cyber space?

Anything goes in e-mail and you have no control over what you recieve unless you are willing to put filters in place and then specify exactly who you will recieve e-mail from and in a business enviroment this isn't pratical as every request from a new customer would never arrive so it would be costing your company business. So we are left with the option of filtering the stuff after its arivial sought of like trying to shut the stable door after the horse is long gone but at present it's the best that we've got and I suspose we will all have to deal with it until something better comes along.

Personally I'd like to see some form of Legislation in place to protect the reciever and not leave them libal when they recieve something that they never wanted in the first place.

Echo ... "Death to spam"

As usual everything in the above posting is totally correct and I can't agree with him any more than what he's already posted and he has certianly put it far better than I ever could have in a very concise and short manner.

But on a more funny note I recieved this bit of spam today and it's entitled how to prevent spam as usual with most spam it makes some really interesting claims {I'm trying not to choke on my tounge here} but there was a link to a site that susposelly offered a program toprevent spam from arriving.

Now this is something different spam mail offering a way to stop spam mail it was one of the few pieces of junk mail that actually caught my attention.

If anyone's interested here's the link

http://stilbox.com/sfabsnupdates.htm

I don't know where it came from and actually I don't have the time to track it down as I'm a bit bussy at the moment but the page in question does make for some interesting reading. I've seen a bit of this stuff in the last few years and at the moment I've got it down to a managable level but this one I just had to have a look at.

Allow one to express, but prior to setting the rules for expression, ensure that all agree.

Spamming is not dangerous, it is the content. This is the reason I ask that the real world be examined before we layout ANY Internet LAW.

Andrew Reets

No Max, I had not heard of the proposals.

Of course, since spam is an activity without a constituency I am surprised that a spam tax is not already in place.
(Oh ya, we have the internet tax moratorium.)

Of course, the rub here is how do you define spam?

If you use mail volume, you interfere with legitimate information.

I suppose you would have to use double opt-in lists as a deciding factor.

As a side thought, once we allow taxing of 1 category of e-mail, how long before we have e-mail postage fees?

Chas

And here in the UK, junk mail, junk faxes (which DO cost the recipient in economic terms as they waste fax rolls) and junk phone calls are all covered by law. We have a body called the Mailing Preference Service where you can register to not receivejunk mail, junk faxes and cold-calling telephone calls. This has been in operation for some time...the Mail service for about 15 years and the fines for organisations that ignore an individuals (or companies) wishes are hefty to say the least! Our Electoral Register has now been reviewed so that citizens can now opt out of the 'public' register and thus not be on any commercially available listing.

Please, do not jump to conclusion; let us remain humane and as just as you can. The Internet offers many advantages and challenges for us. But we have gotten too use to simply eliminating what we do not like rather than taking the time to re-educate. I NEVER said that spamming would bring the Internet to a halt or its what the Internet is about. But let us use the technology to maintain and safeguard this common ground.

Yes, pass laws to protect its users, but do not diminish the common ground. It is bread and butter for some whilst other stands and criticizes.

Let us try and share our common resources, rather than looking to penalize at the first opportunity we have.

I can understand the small business' headaches, and I am also aware that this can be EASILY filtered and/or blocked if we focus on the OBJECTIVE of the product.

Do not cut-off one group to please another. Balance both sides and you will even create opportunity.

TSP

The reason again, is that SPAM e-mail has a cost to the recipient.

When FAX machines first became popular in the 80's, a number of unscrupulous businesses started sending junk FAXes to every machine they could find.
The result, was legislation to prevent junk FAXes.

SPAM like junk FAXes has a cost to the recipient that is not born by the sender.

Remember, that even in the US, commercial speech (such as advertising) is not offered the same freedom of speech protections as political commentary.

It is perfectly legitimate to regulate and control SPAM e-mails.
There are a number of regulations and limitations that radio, TV, Print, and Mailed advertisers MUST follow.

If the SPAM generating businesses were willing to self regulate, then the push for laws would not be present.

Chas

If some form of Self Regulation could be put in place if only for content of a sexual nature we would all be a lot better off. I also agree with the prevention of selling on E-Mail address particuarly the ones that opt out of some unwanted program as the buyers of this type of data are often trying to sell exactly what you wanted out of in the first place. Then theres the group of companies who send out spam from one source and when you unsubscribe from it the same content only comes in from a different source it is things like this that must be stopped as they are a legal nightmare for business and there is NO CONTROL available.

The rest is just nusiance and easly ignored although taking time to block eventually you manage to get theseunwanted postings down to a managable level. While annoying they do not really affer any real problems but it is stuff like "See 13 year old virgins being broken in" that I find offensive and what's worse if found on one of my computers I am lible although I had nothing to do with it comming downline and it is out of my control, this is one area where the LAW needs changing.

? Spam stays alive because people can send out a few million messages and make money with a .0000001 percent responses.

So, why can?t we balance, rather than condemn, as we continue to do?

? Most products advertised by spam are fraudulent and nobody with his/her right mind is going to buy anything from them. More spam means means more people with .. right minds.

Every other shop or poster that I pass by with my daughter has or depicts a scene that can be considered pornography on display. At least over the Internet I CAN PROTECT HER. Your comments, please.

? Nobody with his/her right mind can have 15 doctorate degrees.

... Anyhow, for those who seem not being receiving enough spam ... here ... let me help you out.
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20030521S0002
Thamer (... currently recieving an avergae of 9.5 Spam emails per day ... and i like it to keep it like that ... please.)

This discussion must be focused on curtailing ?SPAM? but no to hurt ?electronic advertising? over the Internet.

TSP

"On average, SPAM e-mail is 1 to 5 kb. Quantify this sheer volume for the subject of discussion."

... Times 1000 spam emails times 1,000,000 spammers (at least).

"We have defined such e-mails as SPAM. For the subject of discussion, why?"

... The distinction between spam and non-spam depends on whether the receiver has done business with the sender. If so, the e-mail cannot be considered spam, but if not, an unsolicited e-mail is spam, even if it comes from a legitimate marketer or company.
http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/2199981

"If no alternatives are provided by the so-labelled IT Industry, what else to be expected. Your comments, please."

Alternatives??! It will be the one with the highest ROI, ... of course!"I can change that at a marginal lower cost and single one time payment."

Good that you can... I wish you all success.

When tackling persistent IT problems, I suspect most of us would agree that a root cause analysis is necessary if we want a real resolution.

Seems to me that with spam, there are several root causes. First, the low cost to the spammer based on how Internet usage is billed. I have suggested one approach to fixing this.

Second, motivation of the spammer. I suspect that many of the spammers have bought into a make money at home scheme. Typically, these individuals are becoming financially desperate due to the economy and are grasping at straws. The individuals enticing them are making their money not through ad response, but through the fees charged to those desperate new spammers. Fraud laws should cover this IF properly enforced.

I suspect tackling the above two root causes would make legitimate annoying spam manageable through filters.

One approach to date has been to report spammers to their host ISP. This can close down a mailbox, at least until the spammers open a new account under a new name or at another ISP. An ISP that seems a consistent source of spam can be blackballed as well. This reactive approach has at best slowed the growth of spam, and at worst added to our costs without any positive effect. It seems to me a treatment of symptoms, not of the real problem.

What if a different tactic were tried? Assume Iam right about the majority of spammers being victims of a scam due to hard times. Step 1, notify them of the scam scenario. Step 2, explain their legal options against the real culprit. Step 3, request that our own DA to take existing steps against the scammer. Perhaps our company legal departments could file a friend of the court type complaint as well.

The same approach could be taken with the ISP. Rather than reporting spam as abuse, report the scam. Make the report to the ISP legal department rather than the email administrator and request their assistance in nailing the scammers, not the spammers.

International spam might be worth the attention of the appropriate national office. Again, the focus should be on getting those scamming rather than those spamming.

If spam is a symptom, almost all of our countries already have laws against the root cause.

Here in the US, many (politically connected) people complain to their elected officials at the first sign of any issue that bothers them.

All it takes is a few conservative families getting explicit spam for x-rated web sites, and they are on thephone to (if not at the door of) their Congressman or Senator.

These same people seem to believe that passing a law takes care of the problem.

Of course, the legislators can add the anti-spam law to their list of accomplishments when it comes time for re-election.

Who cares whether or not the law works or not. It was passed.
Enforcement is someone else's problem.

Chas

Who needs a two-foot-long pecker?!!