[OT] Finally.. the evil of SPAM is being defeated!
- Thread starter Krug
- Start date
WayneLigon
Adventurer
From Associated Press
Internet mavens who clog computers with massive volumes of unsolicited e-mail pitches now risk landing in prison and losing their riches under a tough Virginia law signed Tuesday.
The penalties can apply even if the sender and recipients live elsewhere because much of the global Internet traffic passes through northern Virginia...
Although about half the states have anti-spam laws, no other allows authorities to seize the assets earned from spamming while imposing up to five years in felony prison time, said Gov. Mark R. Warner and Randall Boe, AOL's chief staff attorney.
"We want to be able to put out not only a potential criminal violation with the felony but also to seize the proceeds from this illegal activity _ their cars, boats, airplanes, homes," Warner said.
...
The new law is directed at commercial bulk e-mail, with certain provisions that kick in when someone sends at least 10,000 copies of a message in a single day or makes at least $1,000 from one such transmission.
...
The Virginia law also prohibits tools that automate spam and the forging of e-mail headers, which contain identification information on the sender and its service provider. Spammers often forge the headers to hide their identity and cover their tracks.
The same provisions could affect noncommercial unsolicited e-mail from charities, churches or political candidates if they exceed the volume limit or disguise the sender's identity, said Tim Murtaugh, press secretary for Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore.
...
In Congress, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., planned to introduce legislation this week offering rewards for individuals who help track down spammers.
...
Lofgren's bill would give individuals incentive to do the legwork by offering a bounty to the first person to report the spam and provide information helpful to investigators. The bounty would amount to 20 percent of any civil fines collected by the Federal Trade Commission.
Internet mavens who clog computers with massive volumes of unsolicited e-mail pitches now risk landing in prison and losing their riches under a tough Virginia law signed Tuesday.
The penalties can apply even if the sender and recipients live elsewhere because much of the global Internet traffic passes through northern Virginia...
Although about half the states have anti-spam laws, no other allows authorities to seize the assets earned from spamming while imposing up to five years in felony prison time, said Gov. Mark R. Warner and Randall Boe, AOL's chief staff attorney.
"We want to be able to put out not only a potential criminal violation with the felony but also to seize the proceeds from this illegal activity _ their cars, boats, airplanes, homes," Warner said.
...
The new law is directed at commercial bulk e-mail, with certain provisions that kick in when someone sends at least 10,000 copies of a message in a single day or makes at least $1,000 from one such transmission.
...
The Virginia law also prohibits tools that automate spam and the forging of e-mail headers, which contain identification information on the sender and its service provider. Spammers often forge the headers to hide their identity and cover their tracks.
The same provisions could affect noncommercial unsolicited e-mail from charities, churches or political candidates if they exceed the volume limit or disguise the sender's identity, said Tim Murtaugh, press secretary for Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore.
...
In Congress, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., planned to introduce legislation this week offering rewards for individuals who help track down spammers.
...
Lofgren's bill would give individuals incentive to do the legwork by offering a bounty to the first person to report the spam and provide information helpful to investigators. The bounty would amount to 20 percent of any civil fines collected by the Federal Trade Commission.
green slime
First Post
alsih2o said:
Well for me personally, I would answer these questions in this manner:
Junk mail to my home address is in NO WAY near the proportions I was receiving at my email address, inspite of frequent updating of my spam filters.
I could receive over 200 junk emails a day. At the time, using a 56.6 modem, and trying to wade through to see the 4-10 emails from friends I actually wanted to communicate with, I just gave up.
I have never, ever recieved more than 10 advertisements in a single day via my snailmail box. And they are easily sorted out into file 13. And the nature of those adverts are different: They aren't trying to sell me sex toys, loans or printer ink.
Now telemarketing IS indeed frustrating. But neither is it approaching those proportions. Should it ever do so, I'd abandon my telephone number. Imagine if 19 times out 20 when the phone rang, it was some unknown trying to sell you something you never heard of/didn't want.
(Edit: On average) Once a fortnight I get a phone call to which I immediately say: No thanks, not interested, I do not purchase things off the phone. Then I hang up. Most times, those people selling the crap appreciate me saying that because it saves their time as well. They can then move on to the next number.
Last edited:
KnowTheToe
First Post
alsih2o said:
I work on the internet all day, I purchase, suscribe, research etc.
Without a spam catcher filter some of the spam emails, I can get 40+ junk emails a day. While deleteling them, I can overlook and delete important emails and open myself to viruses.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
One reason, I think, is that junk mail is 'free' in that it costs nothing to be delivered to you. Spam, on the other hand, costs people money when they're using a dial-up account that charges for time spent online. (Yeah, I don't know of anyone still using one of those, either, but I'm sure there are lots.) Spam also ties up network bandwidth, slowing services to everyone. There are also costs to the ISP for routing all that mail, which drive up the cost of your broadband account.
I also found this comparison.
http://www.cauce.org/about/faq.shtml
I have no idea of the accuracy of the information presented but the links there talk about the comparison of costs for junk mail and spam email, and the costs to the ISP.
The most pertinent part seems to be this:
ISPs purchase bandwidth -- their connection to the rest of the Internet -- based on their projected usage by their prospective user base. For most small to midsize ISPs, bandwidth costs are among one of the greatest portions of their budget and contributes to the reason why many ISPs have a tiny profit margin. Sans junk email, greater consumption of bandwidth would normally track with increased numbers of customers. However, when an outside entity (e.g., the junk emailer) begins to consume an ISP's bandwidth, the ISP has few choices: 1) let the paying customers cope with slower internet access, 2) eat the costs of increasing bandwidth, or 3) raise rates. In short, the recipients are still forced to bear costs that the advertiser has avoided.
I also found this comparison.
http://www.cauce.org/about/faq.shtml
I have no idea of the accuracy of the information presented but the links there talk about the comparison of costs for junk mail and spam email, and the costs to the ISP.
The most pertinent part seems to be this:
ISPs purchase bandwidth -- their connection to the rest of the Internet -- based on their projected usage by their prospective user base. For most small to midsize ISPs, bandwidth costs are among one of the greatest portions of their budget and contributes to the reason why many ISPs have a tiny profit margin. Sans junk email, greater consumption of bandwidth would normally track with increased numbers of customers. However, when an outside entity (e.g., the junk emailer) begins to consume an ISP's bandwidth, the ISP has few choices: 1) let the paying customers cope with slower internet access, 2) eat the costs of increasing bandwidth, or 3) raise rates. In short, the recipients are still forced to bear costs that the advertiser has avoided.
alsih2o said:
For a number of reasons...
1)E-mail spam is far more frequently used for a "bait and switch". A catalog you don't want is more harmful to the environment, and more costly overall, but at least is is what it seems to be, instead of being a link to something else entirely.
2)Government critters frequently feel that dealing with spam is legally and technically more tractable. I expect they are usually incorrect.
3)In all likelyhood, the companies producing spam are far smaller, and make less money, than those who use telemarketing and standard mail. That means less organized and well-funded resistance.
Cthulhu's Librarian
First Post
alsih2o said:
I recycle all my junk mail (I know the printing of junk mail is damaging as well, but better to recycle the garbage than just throw it in a landfill), although I would rather not get it in the first place. I've had my name removed from catalog mailing lists. So junk mail is a pain, but I can deal with it.
Telemarketing is a time waster when I pick up the phone and either get a dead line or have some guy start to pitch something. I just hang up. No, I don't like it, and I could screen my calls with an answering machine or caller ID if I wanted to.
Spam, on the other hand, wastes more time and $ of mine than the others combined. When I open my 2 email inboxes (work & personal), I usually find somewhere in the range of 50-75 emails in each, every morning. Of the total 100-150 emails, usually 25-30 are actually email that I want. I have to wait for the PC to download all of them, weed through them, and delete those that I don't want. During the day, I'll continue to receve spam every 20-30 minutes in both accounts. Some come direct to me, some come through work related mailing lists that I am required to be on, and others come from who-knows-where. That is why I hate spam.
Similar Threads
