Forum Moderators: open
...bring a lawsuit in state court that would recover statutory damages of up to $1,000 per e-mail message
I wonder if they've ever tried bringing legal action against a business registered in Equador, Belize, Indonesia, Argentina or BVI? Major spammers with half a brain are wise to this already and don't live in lawsuit friendly countries. Nice try - not going to make a difference...
Agreed, we all know the limits of the law in those countries, but if it stops (discourages) even a few spammers then it has got to be worth it.
At least it puts SPAM back on the agenda.
Dazz
Is it just the word of the person receiving the email?
I sell products online and am quite open about the fact that we send offers of our products once a month or so.
No matter what, there are people who just go nuts... screaming about sueing us and how unethical we are - What stupid people.
Then the U.S. passed a law that put a $500 fine on each unsolicited fax.
Sure, people could still send spam faxes from Butzilvania, and very, very few people have actually paid the fine.
But it pretty much solved the junk fax problem.
I think the "do not mail" list is doomed. I can imagine spammers getting the list (for name suppression purposes, of course), and then mailing the heck out of it from foreign or otherwise safe locations. Being listed on the do-not-mail list might actually set you up for an even more massive wave of spam. Depressing...
I think the point to all this is that SPAM is being recognised more and more as a major problem and hopefully one day all those (have to watch my language) spammers (who i would love to puncture their eyeballs with a sharp stick) will realise there is no place for this scummy type of marketing.
I receive (as im sure all of us do) a stupid amount of spam (even with filters) every day and anything that keeps anti-spam feeling alive is a good thing by me.
all IMHO of course
Dazz
I wonder if they've ever tried bringing legal action against a business registered in Equador, Belize, Indonesia, Argentina or BVI?
You can't get the spammer if people are sending cash and checks to Butzlavia. (Yeah right, a lot of people are sending cash and checks overseas.)
Spammers make their money from credit card purchases.
With a judgement against a foreign spammer in your hand, you can put a lien on his U.S. credit card revenues. In the end, you cut him off from U.S. credit card revenues.
Checkmate.
How do they determine what is SPAM?Is it just the word of the person receiving the email?
I can't define it but I know it when I see it. :)
lawman
I can't define it but I know it when I see it. :)
While I agree with your clever repetition of the 'porn definition' I think that is part of the problem.
Some people see our once-a-month-or-so email ad and they identify it as SPAM... even though we indicate in a couple of obvious locations that if they give us their email we *will* be sending them an ad.
They have to come up with a solid definition that can't be faked. Otherwise, people will be buying stuff or signing up for stuff with the intention of crying SPAM when they receive the expected email.
Welcome to the SPAM Lottery.
even though we indicate in a couple of obvious locations that if they give us their email we *will* be sending them an ad.
How is it determined what is OBVIOUS?
Is it just the word of the person sending the email? :)
lawman
How is it determined what is OBVIOUS?
Above and below the field where these people GIVE us their email address. Also, on the last sign-out page... right by the 'Purchase' button.
Some people are dumb and dishonest. Anyone that sells knows that. What concerns me is that somehow the big companies will be able to send mass emails, but us little guys will get whacked.
Spam has other characteristics, although they do not all have to appear.
1. You did not request it.
2. No method to unsubsribe, or unsubsribe line is fake (either just a verification or 401).
3. Bounces are ignored.
4. Header of the e-mail, which allows tracing are forged.
5. No valid return e-mail address, telephone #, or postal address.
6. Is sent indiscriminately, even to machine addresses (where no real human reads them).
7. You request to stop, but the e-mail continues, even increases.
I believe a do-not-disturb list is a failure, because indeed smarter spammers will just use it to spam. Where can you get a governement verified e-mail list?!
The only true solution would be is an opt-in list for vendors, and when they are called on it, they must show proof. (maybe a public key signed e-mail, or something similar), but even that is of limited value. Who will get a PKI just so they can get spam?
I think it would work if there was a (or more) compan/y/ies that did do double opt-in list with PK signature, and then charged the vendors a fraction of a penny per e-mail and also paid out to the recipient (on what they recieved). Then the cost of e-mail is shifted back to the sender.
Here is an official definition of spam by maps:
An electronic message is "spam" IF: (1) the recipient's personal identity and context are irrelevant because the message is equally applicable to many other potential recipients; AND (2) the recipient has not verifiably granted deliberate, explicit, and still-revocable permission for it to be sent; AND (3) the transmission and reception of the message appears to the recipient to give a disproportionate benefit to the sender.
You did not request it.
And there is the problem... again. People will complain that because they did not give written/verbal permission then it is spam...
Almost every site on the net that sells an actual product does email campaigns. If they don't, they are not sharp business people.
When sites tell you up front that they will send you an email pertaining to the product that you purchased from them and you go ahead and give them your email address... isn't that permission? It *certainly* is implied permission. No different than having to click the 'I Agree' link for various terms of usage.
I for one, would love to have the the US Postal Service get into the email business (my USPS rep has been telling me they are looking into it). This is not the hoax about the USPS charging everyone for email - rather they are looking into Certified Email. You pay them and they send it Certified. Like a letter. It would be illegal to block the email (spam busters) and would be no different than the tons (literally) of snail mail spam we each receive every year. I would have no problem paying for that...
When hitting the check-out button, a page pops up asking if they want such email, with the "Do Not Want" option marked as default.
I'm sure there are other ways to ensure that no one receives something they do not want. I'll leave that to your own creativity.
lawman
It would be illegal to block the email (spam busters)
...and would be no different than the tons (literally) of snail mail spam we each receive every year.
lawman's note to include a checkbox defaulted to no e-mail at the checkout is a good idea. I presume chicagohh you buy your list, or generate it otherwise.
I believe that is part of the problem. How my e-mail get's on "advertisers" mailing list.
I have an "info@mydomain.com" on one of my sites. I now get on average of 600 messages address to "dear info". Or "info, you can increase your #@%^#$^% size in 10 minutes!", etc...
The intent of the e-mail address on my site was not to get advertising. It was to assist visitors requesting, of all things, information.
Clearly my server is loved.
