Let me start this article by stating I am vehemently opposed to spam and that it is the worst possible way to get your message out. Various groups have been trying to stop spam since it was first used on the internet. However, how can we stop or outlaw something which has never been clearly defined.
I have been unable to find a universally accepted, fits-all definition of spam. There are many ideas about spam and just what it really is. In my opinion it is receiving unsolicited email (email which you have not opted to receive). Even this definition must be applied judiciously and with a certain amount of common sense.
For example, a dear friend could forward an email which you find offensive. Should you be in a bad mood, you could report your friend for spam (and also the originator of the email your friend forwarded, even though it was not the originator's intent for you to receive this unsolicited email). In this situation the originator (who is innocent of wrongdoing) and your friend will most likely lose their ISP and web host provider simply because you are having a bad day. Is this fair?
More and more ezine publishers and article writers are being accused of spam and forced to fight their ISPs and web host providers. Many of these spam complaints are totally unfounded. In some cases it is because a person forgot they subscribed to the ezine and when they receive it they say they have been spammed. In other cases the person has written an article which was published in an ezine accused of spamming. Here all the advertisers and the article writers are accused of spam and lose their ISPs and web host providers.
These advertisers and article writers did not commit the offense of spamming. They were accused by association. Most articles written for the internet are free for publication, which means anyone can use them as long as the articles and resource boxes remain intact. Unless the writer is being paid for the article, there is no way of knowing when, how or by whom the article will be published.
The truly unfair method currently used to fight spam considers everyone accused of spam to be automatically guilty. The great majority of ISPs and web host providers shut you down without a second thought when you are accused of spam.
You are not given a chance to prove your innocence. Guilty or not, you are shut down. For most of those trying to make a profit on the internet, this is a sword hanging over their heads. Every time they write an article for publication or send out an ezine they are taking the chance of being unfairly accused of spamming.
No ezine publisher or writer in their right mind would ever consider the use of spam. Their livelihood depends on their ezines and articles, so why would they use something which would destroy that source of income?
Those who use spam as the method of getting their advertisements out should be stopped. But not by taking all the innocent people down with them.
True spam is usually fairly easy to spot. There is a bogus return address consisting of nonsensical numbers and letters, either no way is provided to remove yourself from the list or a bogus address is provided as a means of removing yourself from the list, there is a footer in the message which contains a supposed act of the United States Congress defining spam, or other such obvious items.
99.9% of the ezines I have read have a clear and easy way to unsubscribe. Should you use the link and find you have not been unsubscribed, it is possible you subscribed using another email address which is being forwarded to your current address. The ezine publisher cannot unsubscribe you without the original address from which you subscribed.
If you are really upset by spam, why not concentrate on those who are truly guilty of spamming, and not the innocents. Use your efforts to punish the guilty instead of indiscriminately crying spam every time a piece of email hits your inbox.
As an ezine publisher I get a great deal of spam in my inboxes. Rather than waste my precious time trying to track spammers down or reporting them to Spam Cop, I use my delete button. It is efficient and deadly. The spam is gone as soon as I hit delete.
One of the truly great characteristics of the internet is its use for the free exchange of information. This freedom is being seriously challenged by those who believe in the indiscriminate use of Spam Cop or other such anti-spam organizations.
I can't speak for you, but I get a great deal of information, education and entertainment from the many ezines to which I subscribe. It would be a severe loss if they all quit publishing because of the fear of false spam accusals shutting them down.
In conclusion, spam should be stopped. However, it must be stopped with common sense and discrimination, not with a vigilante mentality. Being accused of spamming is one of the rare instances in current human history where you are considered guilty until proven innocent.
Whatever happened to the concept of innocent until proven guilty?
Should anyone out there in cyberspace have a universally acceptable definition of spam and a means of fairly and judiciously enforcing it, I am extremely interested in your viewpoints.
Robert Taylor
Subscribe to the Key To Success And Wealth ezine. All new subscribers receive a fantastic ebook valued at $38.50. Subscribe by mailto:subscribe@keytosuccessandwealth.com Please place first name in body of email. Send comments to mailto:info@incomesolved.com
SPAM Laws of 2001A.T.Rendon
For a law to take effect on the U.S. federal level, both the House and the Senate must pass the bill and then the President of the United States must sign the bill into law.
Last year we almost got a SPAM law on the books when House legislators approved their version of the SPAM bill, H. R. 3113, the "The Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2000", with a vote of 427-1.
However, it never came close to becoming law because the Senate never even voted on it.
This year, there are already several attempts being made to place SPAM under the law.
The most recognized is known as bill HR 95, which is a re-introduction of H. R. 3113 from last year and is named: "To protect individuals, families, and Internet service providers from unsolicited and unwanted electronic mail." http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.00095:
A SUMMARY AS OF:
1/3/2001--Introduced.
"Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2001 - Amends the Federal criminal code to provide criminal penalties for intentionally initiating the transmission of any unsolicited commercial electronic mail message (message) to a protected computer in the United States with the knowledge that any domain name or other initiator identifying information contained in or accompanying such message is false or inaccurate.
Prohibits any person from sending such a message unless the message contains a valid e-mail address, conspicuously displayed, to which a recipient may send notice of a desire not to receive further messages.
Makes it unlawful for a person to initiate the transmission of such a message in violation of a policy regarding unsolicited commercial e-mail messages that complies with specified requirements, including requirements for notice and public availability of such policy and for an opportunity for subscribers to opt not receive such messages.
Directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to notify violators under this Act, to prohibit further initiation of such messages, and to require the initiator to delete the names and e-mail addresses of the recipients and providers from all mailing lists.
Provides a right of action by a recipient or provider against e-mail initiators who violate the above requirements. "
As bill HR 95 stands right now, it is not expected to pass vote in the House for two reasons, even though the language of the bill is exactly the same as that passed last year in a vote of 427-1:
First, because of the language that allows for a one-time email to be sent so long as a valid return email address is provided by the sender and the sender removes anyone the so requests to be removed from that mailing list.
Although this is the same exact language that was included in the bill that passed the House last year, many SPAM fanatics are raising objections to its' inclusion in the bill this year.
Second, is the language in the last paragraph that would allow a "right of action by a recipient or provider", the problem being that the law would allow Internet Service Providers, ISP's, to file for monetary damages against spammers to the tune of $500 per email sent or $50,000 per mailing incident.
Opponents argue that ISP's would be filing against anyone that might be accused of SPAM, guilty or not, in hopes of reaping big financial gains.
Considering how SPAM compalints are often handled these days with innocent people having their services terminated or web site shut down without even having allegations of SPAM investigated, perhaps there is reason for such fears of abuse.
A search of both the Senate, http://www.senate.gov/ and the House, http://thomas.loc.gov/ found only the following under The keyword "Spam":
Two other bills introduced in the House are:
1. Wireless Telephone Spam Protection Act - H.R.113 : http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107WLOF59::
2. Anti-Spamming Act of 2001 - H.R. 1017: This Act may be cited as the `Anti-Spamming Act of 2001' http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:2:./temp/~c107WLOF59::
Rep. Gene Green, from the 29th District in Texas and is the sponsor of HR 95, so if you wish to make any suggestions or comments on the proposed Spam Law, he can be reached by any of the following:
HON. GENE GREEN
2335 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-1688
Fax: (202) 225-9903
HON. GENE GREEN
256 N. Sam Houston Pkwy. E., Suite 29 Houston, TX 77060
(281) 999-5879
Fax: (281) 999-5716
If you would like to send him an email, you may do so by visiting his official web site at: http://www.house.gov/green/ and filling out the supplied form.
A.T.Rendon is an entrepreneur and published writer. Subscribe to FREE Business Classifieds Newsletter & receive FREE online access to our Password Protected "FREE Submit To Over 1 MILLION FREE Ad Sites!" mailto:subscribe_fbcn9@emailexchange.org Visit us at: http://emailexchange.org/?articles
Labels: anti_exchange_software_spam, blocker_e_free_mail_spam, domino_spam, email_free_spam, filtering_service_spam, free_spam, isp_spam
