~terry
Mon, Mar 2, 1998 (01:13)
seed
Spam on the net ain't gettin' much better. How do we deal with it? Or
do we go hide our heads in the sand? Do we get radical?
Oh man the stories I could tell. Hey, come to think, of it, the stories
I *will* tell. And tell here.
The problem isn't with our saintly members, it's with the spammers who
use spring.com as their mail alias or return address. These bad apples
give us a bad rep on the net.
From the time to time, the Spring emails it's own members, when is this
spam? And how can this be done without blowing anyone out?
So if you came here looking for news of Spamorama on Town Lake, you're
close.
~terry
Mon, Mar 2, 1998 (03:05)
#1
Right now Best.com is cleaning up mail servers that were broken
by 100,000 spam messages. Mail to most of their customers is
bouncing. That's 30,000 people whose mail is being lost due
to one spammer. There's your real cost. And this is just one
incident, similar things happen every day.
(heard from jef@well.com)
~autumn
Tue, Mar 3, 1998 (13:49)
#2
Before this goes any further, could you define "spam"? I am clueless.
~KitchenManager
Tue, Mar 3, 1998 (17:12)
#3
Tons o' unwanted e-mail...
a veritably plethoric butload, if you will...
~terry
Wed, Mar 4, 1998 (06:39)
#4
Technically, "unsolicited email" or email that you didn't specifically
request that came out of the blue, usually telling you that you have just
been priviledged to be let in on the greatest multilevel marketing
business ever. Or that for a mere $25 you can have 1 million emails sent
on your behalf.
~KitchenManager
Wed, Mar 4, 1998 (14:12)
#5
'Tis true...
~Wolf
Sat, Apr 18, 1998 (21:22)
#6
oh, and not to mention the adults only password for the hottest place on the web!
~KitchenManager
Wed, May 20, 1998 (01:30)
#7
(1) SENATE PASSES CONGRESS' FIRST EFFORT TO ADDRESS UNSOLICITED
COMMERCIAL EMAIL
On May 12 the Senate passed Congress' first effort to clamp down on
senders
of unsolicited commercial email messages (UCE), popularly called 'spam'
or
'junk email.' CDT believes that this bill is a measured first step in
addressing the issue of spam. But there are several issues that need to
be
addressed before final passage. The current definition of 'unsolicited
commercial email,' for example, unconstitutionally restricts unsolicited
anonymous political speech. We've communicated this concern to the bill's
sponsors, Senators. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Robert G. Torricelli
(D-N.J.), and we will work to see that this concern is addressed in the
final version of the legislation. For the letter, see:
http://www.cdt.org/spam/cdtletter.html
We also recognize that in the future additional steps may be needed,
depending on how well this first attempt to deal legislatively with the
problem works.
Sens. Murkowski and Torricelli's bill requires those who send unsolicited
commercial email to:
** identify themselves and provide accurate contact information within
the
body of their email message;
** provide accurate routing information; and
** stop sending email messages upon the request of a recipient.
The bill gives several different parties the right to bring legal action
against the senders of unsolicited commercial email. Those parties
include:
** The Federal Trade Commission, which may fine anyone who violates the
law
up to $15,000, and may seek an injunction that prohibits the violator
from
sending more spam;.
** State Attorneys General, who may bring lawsuits on behalf of the
residents of their state to get an injunction against the transmission of
more unsolicited commercial email, force the sender to comply with the
law,
and obtain damages and 'other appropriate relief' from the sender for the
harm it caused by sending unwanted commercial email; and
** Internet Service Providers who have been harmed by people who use
their
services to send spam may also bring a lawsuit to get an injunction and
to
obtain damages and other appropriate relief. ISPs may be awarded up to
$15,000 for each violation of the law through the use of their service.
The
court may also force the violator to pay the ISP's attorney fees, as long
as they are reasonable, and court costs. By allowing the courts to shift
the cost of a successful lawsuit off ISPs, and onto the shoulders of the
spam senders themselves,the bill may encourage more ISPs to pursue
spammers.
The bill gives the FTC, the State Attorneys General and the Internet
service providers the power to enforce the law's provisions. The bill
also
retains the states' abilities to enact additional legislation or to
employ
existing consumer protection laws to address unsolicited commercial
email.
S. 1618 avoids many of the thorny questions regarding speech and Internet
service liability raised by earlier proposals. While the bill is only a
beginning, CDT believes it will have an impact on the unscrupulous people
who are clogging the email system with unwanted messages. This bill won't
eliminate unsolicited commercial email, but it will enable individual
Internet users and Internet service providers to exercise more control
over
a problem they have so far found to be almost unworkable. It will ensure
that people who send spam will hear back from consumers who don't want to
get it.
The issue of unsolicited commercial email will remain active in the
policy
arena. First, the Senate Commerce Committee has tentatively scheduled a
hearing on this issue on June 17th. Second, the Ad Hoc Working Group on
Unsolicited Commercial Email, which CDT convened last fall at the request
of the FTC, is also due to release its report soon. CDT coordinated the
drafting of the report, which, as we told Sens. Murkowski and Torricelli,
found consensus in a desire to:
a) maximize individual email users' control over the information that
enters their in-box;
b) ensure that costs were not imposed unfairly upon end users, and
Internet
and online service providers; and
c) increase the enforcement of existing FTC regulations and state laws on
'unfair, deceptive and misleading commercial statements' in a way that
protects the First Amendment right to free speech.
Meanwhile, the text of S. 1618 is available on Sen. Murkowski's Web site,
at:
http://www.senate.gov/~murkowski/commercialemail/EMailAmendText.html
A companion bill, H.R. 3888, was introduced in the House by Rep.Billy
Tauzin (R-La.) on May 14. The text is not yet available online.
~stacey
Wed, May 20, 1998 (15:29)
#8
it's about damn time!