On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, John Glube wrote:
On 12/24/05, william(at)elan.net <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net> wrote:
Hi John and happy holidays,
Same to all - Seasons Greetings
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.
I strongly disagree.
:-)
(When did that ever happen before.)
The Act does not prohibit the sending of unwanted
commercial email. The Act prohibits the sending of
commercial and transactional email that is not CanSpam
compliant.
Big difference.
I think you misunderstood. My comment in that paragraph was in regards to
what legal solution should do in general, not in regards to what can-spam
in particular did. As to can-spam I agree with your interpretation and
what you wrote below i.e. because that can-spam does not go far enough,
it can not solve the problem at the source as legal solution should do.
The theory being that it is easier for Internet Access
Services and consumers to filter CanSpam compliant
commercial and transactional email.
Of course, the problem is that most UBE is not compliant
and technology is limited in its ability to filter e-mail,
especially if the spammer is using zombie networks.
I suggest people read with care the report of Mathew
Bishop, PHD, which you can read here:
http://www.ftc.gov/reports/canspam05/expertrpts.htm
The underlying flaw with the FTC report?
The Commission did not ask this question:
"Would a legal regime which starts by prohibiting the
sending of commercial email without express or implied
consent, in addition to prohibiting senders from misleading
recipients about an e-mail's origin and content, along with
giving recipients the ability to decline to receive
additional commercial email from the same source be more
effective in protecting the consumer against spam, defined
as unsolicited bulk commercial email and which includes
commercial email that is deceptive as to origin and
content?"
Unfortunately, the Commission has repeatedly rejected this
position as having any merit, because in its view the
problem is bulk email with deceptive characteristics.
This in spite of the cogent evidence coming out of
Australia, supported by the analysis of the Canadian Task
Force on Spam and the work done by Spamhaus, which supports
a yes answer to this question.
The refusal of the Commission to remove its blinkers is
understandable. Its mandate is to prevent deceptive and
unfair trade practices.
The Commission is the wrong agency to spearhead the fight.
It should be the FCC, since the problem is UBE, which is
communication over the Internet without consent and not
deceptive communications, which is simply a subset of the
problem.
Also, todate the big players have not supported asking this
question.
Why? Under the present regime, backbone providers can sell
bandwidth to spammers (by spammer I mean someone sending
bulk email without express or implied consent as defined in
the Canadian Task Force on Spam) and filters to down stream
users and consumers.
The large mail box providers have the resources to build
the suite of services required to survive and prosper under
this regime, so ensuring that consumers receive less
unwanted commercial email (which is not the same as
unsolicited bulk email) in their inbox.
The big corporate mailers find the present regime very
convenient given the opt-out data collection methods that
prevail in the market place (which amusingly the ESPC calls
indirect consent).
As such the regulatory agency charged with leading the
fight has no constituency to support asking this question.
<snip>
Kind regards,
John
-------
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