OT: E-ChannelNews - Do We Really Need This?

[Fairlight]

Y'all catch dis heeyah?  Kenneth Brody been jivin' 'bout like:
> 
> I'm sure that some states have laws that make this illegal.  However,
> from what I understand, it's perfectly "legal" under the YOU-CAN-SPAM
> act as long as they supply an "unsubscribe" method.

Pretty sure it's illegal if sent to anyone in the state of Washington.  And
yeah, the opt-out unsubscribe info actually falls within CAN-SPAM rules,
although doesn't the subject have to be conspicuous about it being
unsolicited, as well?

> do spammers actually stop spamming if you "opt-out".  Often, it will
> actually increase the amount of spam, because it means that not only
> have you confirmed that the address is valid, but you also took the
> time to read the junk to figure out how to supposedly stop the spam.)

This could be the reason why my spam count has dropped dramatically at the
MTA level before it hits my own software.  Used to be over 8000 every 14
days at one point two years ago.  The last report said 314 were dropped on
the floor by the MTA in the last 14 days.  I've seen it as low as 115.
Since I never respond to anything like this (in fact, I never see it), my
address may be going as "unconfirmed".  Probably helped out by the
possibility that the MTA may not only drop it on the ground, but do so with
an error status that indicates I'm undeliverable.  Don't know if it does or
doesn't, but it would make sense to do so from a tactical standpoint.

All of which makes it really hard to guage whether spam is on the rise or
fall short of reading some other organisation's ideas about it.  Symantec
claims it's down.  I could choose to believe that, but it seems unlikely.
I see far lower numbers, but I -think- they're related to my actions and my
ISP's actions, not the general trend.  Unless someone set up a honeypot for
spam, I should think it would be hard to guage.

mark->