The Can Spam FailureFour years later... ( old news - 12:54PM Wednesday Aug 08 2007) tags: spamBack when the Can Spam Act was first being proposed, we, along with everybody else, pointed out that the likely result would be more spam, as its primary interest was to protect "legit" mass marketers. Lo and behold, some four years later, The New Yorker puts things in perspective: In the year after the law was enacted, less than seven per cent of spam complied with the requirements of the legislation, according to MX Logic, an Internet-security firm. Last year, compliance with the law never even reached one per cent. Corporate technology administrators watched, often dumbfounded, as spam volumes jumped noticeably in October, and then again in November. Postini, a prominent Internet-security firm, stopped twenty-two billion messages from reaching the mailboxes of its thirty-six thousand clients in November alone. The company now intercepts twelve spam messages for every e-mail delivered. In a 2005 report to Congress (pdf), the FTC, with a few caveats, suggested that the act was, in fact, working, and was an effective new legal tool. Techdirt, meanwhile, explores how the law doesn't do much legally for individuals (or shops eager to make a business out of suing spammers). Related:- Europe Now The King Of Spam
- Blocking Skype Spam is Up To Users
- Spam King Faces 26 Years In Jail
- New AT&T Filters Eating Legit E-mail
- Wireless Companies Crack Down on Phone Spam
- Thursday Evening Links
- You Have a Constitutional Right to Send Spam
- Monday Morning Links
|
 SierraRob
join:2007-01-10 Prather, CA | Why is this news? Wow, an act of Congress that DIDN'T solve any problem, but simply helped some rich people get richer. Shocking!
Why is this even news? | |
|  |   DHRacer Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10 Lake Arrowhead, CA
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Charter Pipeline
edit: August 8th, @01:28PM
| Re: Why is this news? It's an obvious disconnect between political leadership and reality.
Oh, wait, that's normal these days.
It should be news because it's another piece of wasted legislation with less teeth than Grampa Simpson.
We can only hope that some sort of reality-check might one day occur in the various levels of U.S. Government, but when the only checks they are interested in keep coming from big business, it isn't likely to occur in anyone's lifetime.
Edits for spelling, etc. | |
|   cableties Premium join:2005-01-27 Levittown, PA | US bureacracy at work! I mean recess... "Release the gif PDF Spam hounds!!!"
By george, I think the politicians made more money off this than the spammers. (And I mean by PAC monies, and greased palms...) | |
|  |  |  clickie
join:2005-05-22 Monroe, MI
| Re: Why would anyone here be surprised? I don't agree with your comments, but I agree with a portion of your premise. Indeed, it's time that the internet community respond to a problem created by technology with a technological solution.
Seems to me that it would be a rather easy to implement something to permit the recipient to verify the identity of the sender. By giving levels of trust, it could be easy to filter mail appropriately either by the end reader or at the final MTA, whichever the recipient so desires. Once someone reports a breach of trust with a sender's credentials, that information can be stored to assist others.
Of course, does Postini, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and a handful of large ISPs really want this problem solved? Effective spam filtering is either a money maker or a marketing point for these people, and solving the problem affects their bottom line. | |
|  |  |   pog Premium join:2004-06-03 Kihei, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| Re: Why would anyone here be surprised? said by clickie :Seems to me that it would be a rather easy to implement something to permit the recipient to verify the identity of the sender. Seems to me you need to read up on things a bit.
Such systems already exist and have for many years... all have flaws, some very serious, that make them universally unadoptable. The basic fact is that email was originally built around trust and good faith... so any attempt to secure it is going to involve a kludge.
There is no magic bullet... all solutions have varying levels of collateral damage and/or ineffectiveness. -- My Site | |
|  |  |  |  clickie
join:2005-05-22 Monroe, MI
| Re: Why would anyone here be surprised? Seems to me you're making the assumption that I don't know about SPF or domainkeys, et al. They fail because they try to stop spam within the MTA and don't give enough control the recipient to determine the level of trust they're willing to accept. All that remains is the way you determine trust; X.509 certificates or various signature schemes.
The MTA is built around trust, but that doesn't mean the client has to impart the same trust. Using multipart MIME formatting makes it compatible with existing mail systems, and isn't any more of a kludge than HTML/rich text formatting. | |
|  |  |  DufiefData
join:2006-06-13 Gaithersburg, MD edit: August 8th, @11:38PM
| A government program failed?! I'm SHOCKED! I am shocked--SHOCKED!--that a government program has failed to do what it advertised! How could Mommy Government fail all the believers who longingly yearned for Her salvation?!
Simply SHOCKED! | |
|   Rogue Wolf Came To Bury Caesar, Not To Praise Him
join:2003-08-12 Saratoga Springs, NY
| Only one thing is going to stop spam... ...people not buying things advertised in spam.
So long as it makes money, it doesn't matter what rules and laws you put in place- someone's going to get around them. -- Let not the Demon in your thoughts. Let not the Demon in your dreams. Lest you should awake one morn, And find the Demon within thee. | |
|  | |  |
|
|