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

[Kenneth Brody]

Quoting Fairlight (Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:14:30 -0500):

> 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?

I don't think it says anything about being marked "unsolicited".
(Besides, in this case they would claim that it's not "unsolicited"
because John didn't opt-out when they told him they were going to
start spamming him.)  I believe the law says you need to mark some
things like "sexually explicit" and the like, but I don't believe
that there is any "unsolicited" mark needed.

[...]
> 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.

Mine is definitely on the rise.  I get about 2000-3000 per week thrown
into my "held mail" folder for suspected spam.  There are almost zero
false-positives.  (There are far more false negatives -- sometimes a
few dozen in a day, though usually less than ten.)

A funny thing about some of the spam is that I get PayPal phishes to
many of my e-mail addresses, but never to my PayPal address.

--
KenBrody at BestWeb dot net        spamtrap: <g8ymh8uf001 at sneakemail.com>
http://www.hvcomputer.com
http://www.fileProPlus.com