[IP] spam -- An article from dmnews.com
Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:25:18 -0500
From: bosley.john@xxxxxxx
Subject: An article from dmnews.com
To: farber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For IP if you choose, Dave. And a happy holiday to all "Interesting People!"
John Bosley
The following article appeared on http://www.dmnews.com
Published on Nov. 25, 2003
DMers Applaud Federal Spam Bill
With California's anti-spam bill looming, e-mail marketers
breathed a sigh of relief that federal spam legislation is
expected to override it.
The congressional logjam broke Friday after negotiations between
leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House
shelved its competing spam bills in favor of a modified version of
the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, which the Senate had unanimously passed
Oct. 22.
On Saturday morning, after an all-night session, the House voted
392-5 to pass the slightly amended version of CAN-SPAM. The Senate
is expected to vote on the amended bill in a few days; President
Bush has indicated he will sign it into law.
Marketers roundly praised the bill, particularly its pre-emption
of more onerous anti-spam legislation in more than 35 states.
California's toughened spam law, known as SB 186, was to take
effect Jan. 1.
"We're really, really happy that SB 186 will not see the light of
day," said Al DiGuido, chief executive of e-mail service provider
Bigfoot Interactive, New York. "This legislation will put an end
to all the chaos and the nightmare of states having their own
view" of spam.
E-mail marketers feared an avalanche of lawsuits under the
California spam law's provision for private lawsuits. Under the
federal law, consumers cannot sue.
E-mail list providers also breathed a sigh of relief, getting out
from under the California law's wording that seemed to ban e-mail
prospecting.
"We're still not entirely out of the woods yet, but it looks like
we're getting there," said Michael Mayor, chief executive of New
York e-mail list rental company NetCreations.
The federal bill does not ban unsolicited commercial e-mail.
Instead, it requires that marketers include a physical address and
valid opt-out mechanism in messages along with notice that the
messages are ads, plus an honest subject line.
Michael Della Penna, Bigfoot Interactive's chief marketing
officer, said those new requirements would not appreciably raise
the costs of e-mail marketing.
"I think the legitimate guys are already doing a lot of the best
practices," he said.
The one bugaboo for marketers is the CAN-SPAM Act's call for the
Federal Trade Commission to plan a do-not-e-mail registry. But the
bill does not require the FTC to implement a list, only to report
back in six months on the feasibility of a list and a timetable
for implementing it. FTC chairman Timothy Muris has questioned
whether such a list would do much to combat spam.
Details of the do-not-e-mail registry remain left to be worked out
by the FTC.
"It's pretty well established that it can be done in a secure,
reliable fashion," said Ray Everett-Church, co-founder of the
Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail.
Opponents of the registry say it would do nothing to combat spam
while saddling legitimate e-mail marketers with more regulations.
"It's not a workable idea," Mayor said. "I think it's just going
to backfire on the government."
FTC representatives were unavailable for comment.
Despite its call for the registry, the CAN-SPAM Act disappointed
anti-spam activists, who accuse the marketing industry of
protecting their own interests at the expense of consumers'.
"This legalizes the sending of unsolicited commercial e-mail,"
Everett-Church said. "It will not ultimately stop consumers from
receiving unwanted, unsolicited messages."
The legislation forbids sending spam with false header information
or using other means to disguise the sender's identity. The bill
bans harvesting of e-mail addresses from Web sites and breaking
into computers to send spam. It also forbids using automated
methods to sign up for free Web-based e-mail accounts. It includes
provisions for Internet service providers to take spammers to
court and gives state attorneys general the power to file
lawsuits. Violators are subject to awards up to $2 million,
potentially tripled for intentional violations, and five years in
prison.
"My guess is the number of people willing to risk that amount of
fines and jail time is not many," said William Nussey, chief
executive of Atlanta e-mail service provider Silverpop.
Microsoft and AOL released statements supporting the legislation,
particularly the penalties against fraudulent spam. Microsoft
chairman Bill Gates called the bill "a milestone in the battle
against spam."
You may view this article
at http://www.dmnews.com/cgi-bin/artprevbot.cgi?article_id=25720
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/