how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to twitter
Re: nice... That's an EXCELLENT law, especially the requirements alerting you as to an "Adv:" or Adult.
Right, I do agree it's hard to enforce, but it's the right direction to go.
It means people can and will start to have a means to hit back at spammers and force them to clean up their act!
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
 koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:14
| We have the ADV: law in California, and it simply doesn't work. Our law declares that any unsolicited advertisements **ORIGINATING** from California must contain that subject prefix -- so spammers push their spam through open relays in other countries or other states: problem solved.
Of course, open relays are becoming few and far between these days -- the more common tactic is to team up with IRC DDoS kiddies (my guess is that they're the spammers to begin with) and gain access to compromised boxes that can do their dirty work.
Spammers do not abide by laws and they likely never will. We can pass all sorts-of legislation, it won't stop them from continuing their efforts, illegal or otherwise. So far, all efforts deployed have gone in one ear and out the other -- or have simply caused spammers to change their methodology (see above). The latest method deployed is definitely bound to piss off a myriad of folks who rely on SpamAssassin.
I don't rely on SpamAssassin for three reasons: it's a broken implementation / badly implemented (case in point), relies heavily on perl (major bottleneck for mail delivery), and doesn't assist bandwidth-conscious administrators (the incoming DATA portion of the SMTP transaction is still accepted rather than denied at earlier stages of the SMTP handshake).
If any legislation is to be passed, it needs to contain a clause that states how the definition of law applies is based upon where the **recipient** is located, *NOT* where the spam originated from.
As for my own opinion? The only legislation that'd be effective would be to propose death by injection/gas/electric chair/hanging when violated. I'd _gladly_ vote for that.
You know what gets me? These guys aren't making sh** for money. You could effectively relocate to a tech-prone region and get a full-time job making more money than these folks. It's not about money, it's about laziness. Oh how I'm so proud to be an American... pardon me while I go toss up.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-11 17:30:56] | |
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by koitsu:
We have the ADV: law in California, and it simply doesn't work. Our law declares that any unsolicited advertisements **ORIGINATING** from California must contain that subject prefix -- so spammers push their spam through open relays in other countries or other states: problem solved.
The Missouri law is cooler, because it states that spam *received* must be "ADV:" so that means any SPAM that comes in from anywhere that DOESN'T do so is in violation. Sure, it's still hard to enforce, but at least it provides the motivation and financial incentive to try.... 
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
