| |||||||||||||
The CAN-SPAM bill examinedThe CAN-SPAM bill examinedPosted Dec 2, 2003 7:39 UTC (Tue) by jmason (guest, #13586)Parent article: The CAN-SPAM bill examined 'The CAN-SPAM bill actually has the effect of legitimizing spam so long as it is non-fraudulent and provides the recipient with a means to "opt-out" of future e-mails. This is a big win for the DMA, and a major loss for the rest of us.' Agreed. Note, however, that many other parts of the world, including most of Europe, already has or will be making opt-in a requirement; in other words, doing spam laws *right*. So even if CAN-SPAM suits the DMA's members, they may still have an interesting time trying to figure out which list 'subscribers' are "opt-in required" (outside the US) or not (inside the US). I, for one, do expect to see an increase in mainsleaze spam. However, my .org, and my personal email address(es) are registered and based in Ireland, which requires opt-in; and big US-based multinationals -- or at least the ones with European offices -- may still have to respect Irish laws in that respect. That should be interesting -- and worth a try, at least!
(Log in to post comments)
The CAN-SPAM bill examined Posted Dec 4, 2003 12:29 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] The other neat European trick - the company who's products are being marketed is responsible for maintaining the list - so if you do reply to an "opt-out", they can't then give the list to a different company and send you the same (or similar) spam again.But how soon will it be before a BIG company sues the Direct Marketing Association for denial-of-service. I've heard of at least one company complain that their broadband connection was being hammered so bad by spam that their mail-server (configured for "rejection on header", therefore obviously not MS Exchange), couldn't keep up with the flood unless it had EXCLUSIVE use of the connection ... Cheers,
|
|||||||||||||