spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] FYI: FTC REPORTS VOLUME OF SPAM DOWN

2005-12-24 09:57:21

Hi John and happy holidays,

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005, John Glube wrote:

FTC REPORTS VOLUME OF SPAM DOWN
In a report to Congress, the FTC said the Can-Spam Act that
took effect two years ago has helped curb unsolicited
e-mail. The report also credits advances in technology, such
as better spam filters that weed out junk e-mail.The report
was met with some skepticism.
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/technology/13451
053.htm

It seems to be the can-spam act was designed to reduce number of spam
emails being sent.

No. The CANSPAM Act was not designed to control volume.

It may not have had that spelled out, but my view is that it did
and you only confirmed it. The difference is really if the solution
is designed to address the issue at the source or at destination.

The legal solution is going to address issue at the source, i.e.
reduce possibility that some law-abiding party would send unwanted
email and that to me means reducing of volume of emails being sent.

Technical solutions address the issue at the destination by either
not accepting unwanted emails at destination or filtering them out
if received, i.e. the reduce volume of unwanted emails being seen
by user in his/hers mailbox.

My problem with reported results is that they are in fact focused
on the destination rather then source (as act was supposed to
address) and as such I think this is misleading.

The Act does three basic things:

* gives recipients the legal right to object to receiving further
commercial email from a specific source;

Legal right to object basically means that they go to court and make
sender pay. While on surface this does not seem like addressing this
at the source, in reality the idea is to use monetary and legal means
to eliminate those who are bad senders, i.e. remove the source or
force them to comply with the act and not send unwanted emails.

* requires mailers to comply with specified statutory requirements
when sending commercial or transactional email;

see above (and btw you should have put this as first point)

* exempts the filtering policies of Internet Access Services from
the Act's application.

This one is legal separation of regulations on destination and on
the source and emphasis that the act only applies to the source.

Representatives of the FTC have specifically said on a number of
occasions that the Act was not designed to control volume.

As you point below the act also does not use the term 'spam' but
we all know what its about.

Furthermore the Act does not define the term spam, merely speaking
about unwanted commercial email.

I guess that is why it is called "can-spam act" that it does not speak
and use this term.... The term would have to have been defined and they chose not to do it and just use directly particular definition of it as part of the act.

The question that Congress wanted to know was has the Act been effective in establishing the appropriate legal framework to allow for concerted action in controlling unwanted commercial and pornographic email?

According to the FTC:

* marketers are by and large honoring opt-outs; and

I've seen marketers setup several companies which are controlled by
larger companies and the system used is that when you opt-out of one
of them, your email address gets transfered to another and you begin
to receive emails apparently from new domain/company which in reality
is just another legal front for the same group.

The act really should have been like AUS and say that no unsolicited
commercial emails are allowed at all.

* more effective filtering has reduced the amount of unwanted
commercial and pornographic email the average user receives in their
inbox.

Technical advancements for destination filtering.
This one is not due to the act itself.

The FTC went on to state that one key element which has yet to be
solved is to find a way to thwart the ability of bad guys to remain
anonymous. The FTC indicated it was going to continue to work
vigorously with industry to find a solution to this problem, while
noting the work done by Microsoft utilizing Sender ID.

MS has been spending lots of money on lobbyists in recent years as
you probably all know.

All that being said, I am of the view that the CANSPAM Act is an
ineffective legal framework.

Yes, I don't think its been very effective and FTC is just trying to
cover this up.

--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com