THE END of affiliate programs = CAN-SPAM? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

goBigtime · 12-09-2003, 11:43 AM

50 affiliates applying for the Carls Jr. graveyard shift.

Quote:

Originally posted by liquidmoe
well 10% sounds like a "sky is falling" analogy, not to say that it's not possible,

I think the industry lost over 30% of its 'paysite operators' when visa required a $750 registration fee*

*According to Ibills earnings reports if I recall correctly.

Swanks · 12-09-2003, 07:48 PM

Heres an excerpt from a private board.. This should help those of you clueless people understand this law a bit better.

Quote:

Ok?thank you all. Here is my take on one or two aspects of the new law, which as of Monday December 8, 2003, was passed in its final version, and is by now, at the White House, awaiting the President?s signature. At that point, it is the Law of the land, and it goes into effect January 01, 2004.

First of all, it is an extremely important VICTORY for all those who have had the insight to capitalize on the great potential of the Internet. Even those studies, which were originally intended to be harsh on this industry, showed that approximately 38% of those receiving unsolicited commercial e-mail actually OPENED it. And 2% - 7% of those that opened the email solicitation?purchased goods or services as a result.

Second, by having national recognition as a Profession, we cannot be DENIED the rights of ANY OTHER RECOGNIZED PROFESSION! The SAME law that protects the lawful operations of an Abortion Clinic and its? employees, is the SAME law that protects us NOW, from ILLEGAL tactics of anti-spam groups and individuals.

Joe-Jobs designed to closed your web site or remove-me mechanisms, false complaints designed to shut down your reply to addresses, harassment, intimidation or threats that force you to operate anonymously or restrict you from conducting lawful trade. ALL OF THAT will have to STOP. If the law tells me that I have a right to operate a business, as long as I follow the rules, Anti?s might say bullshit to that, but just let one of them attack an individual or company that is in reasonable compliance with the law. What do I mean by that? Here is a quote from one of the authors and supporters of the new Law? Senator Schumer:

"With this bill, Congress is saying that if you are a spammer, you can wind up in the slammer. That is the bottom line," said a chief co-sponsor, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York). "The bottom line is that there will be criminal penalties and real prosecution. Will we go after every spammer, somebody who makes a mistake here and there? No. But the studies show us -- this is what gives all of us such hope -- that maybe 250 spammers send out 90 percent of the e-mail. And we are saying to those 250, no matter where you are, or how you try to hide your spam, we will find you. This bill gives the FTC and the Justice Department the tools to go after you."

And here is a summary of the law:
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/index.php?ID=2814
Full Text here:
http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html
So my initial reaction is based on the law, how it is written and discussions with authorities and politicians about the impact of it on our profession.

SO basically, it is saying:
1. That we include a physical street address in all commercial e-mail messages.
2. Valid Reply-To addresses that are actually owned by the senders.
3. No misleading or falsification of e-mail headers.
4. A valid remove mechanism so that a recipient can be removed from any future solicitations of the sender. The remove mechanism must remain working a minimum of 30 days after a solicitation has been completed.
5. Using third party Mail Transfer Agents (relays and proxy servers) incorrectly is prohibited.
6. Harvesting e-mail addresses is prohibited.
7. Enhanced civil and criminal penalties for abusive and predatory email practices.
And a full reading of the Law implies that ?intent to defraud? is key. For instance:
a. Are you in violation of the law if you have use bogus from addresses?
b. Are you in violation if you use valid from, a correct address, remove link?EVERYTHING in compliance except you are using proxies or relays?
c. Are you in violation if an anti-spammer hammers your ISP, forcing them to shut down your web site or remove mechanism?
d. Are you in violation if you have done all you can do to comply, but an ISP discriminates against your profession or changes his/her mind ..by not allowing you to maintain the servers or resources that you need in order to COMPLY with the law?
e. How does this affect you if you setup offshore and trigger the Suspicious Activity clause of the Patriot Act? Or are one of the 26 + business types that the Act focuses on?
f. Is it lawful for an AOL, MSN or Earthlink to spam and KEEP their connectivity, but you lose YOURS because you do not have the influence or deep pockets like they do?
g. Is an ISP, Anti-Spammer, Blacklisting organization, etc., in violation of Freedom of Speech, Restraint of Trade and Unfair Trade Practices laws if they prohibit or restrict the lawful delivery of a communication between you and a potential client, IF you are following the rules as laid out by the law?

I think that if we setup in reasonable compliance with the law, and not promote something that is clearly targeted by the government, we can all make more money, gain more credibility, do more business, than we ever, ever have done in the past. This is a whole new ballgame?if we just move with the cheese :-)

I am NOT saying that proxy or relay mailing is illegal. The law says:

(2) uses a protected computer to relay or retransmit multiple commercial electronic mail messages, with the intent to deceive or mislead recipients, or any Internet access service, as to the origin of such messages.

So if I use a proxy or relay of someone who has purposely left the door open for relaying of mail, there is no real test to show that the sender did something wrong. If someone has a case to dispute this, let me know.

I am NOT saying that moving offshore is the answer. Based on what you sell, how you sell it, and where and how you SPEND your money makes a huge difference.

I AM saying that there are some things that are 100% clear no-no's and means nothing but trouble., while other things make me kick my heels with JOY !!!

What?s YOUR take on any of this?

Swanks · 12-09-2003, 07:49 PM

Alright so some of you may be questioning the use of open relays and proxies..

Quote:

Is Using Proxies Or Relays Legal?

A lot of concern has been paid to whether or not proxy or relaying mailing is unlawful, under the provisions of the (U) Can Spam Act of 2003.

These are some sections of the law:

(a) IN GENERAL- Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly--

(1) accesses a protected computer without authorization, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from or through such computer,

(2) uses a protected computer to relay or retransmit multiple commercial electronic mail messages, with the intent to deceive or mislead recipients, or any Internet access service, as to the origin of such messages,

(3) materially falsifies header information in multiple commercial electronic mail messages and intentionally initiates the transmission of such messages,

So. here we go with the ?intent to deceive? clause again. It never said the using Relays or Proxies in or of itself, is a violation of Law. You must use them, in combination of OTHER things, in such a manner and with the ?intent to deceive?. So my use of a proxy or relay must be used to Materially misrepresent the origin of my mail. If that is true, then we look a bit further into the law. Look at the Law?s definition of materially. Clearly the use of a proxy or relay is NOT ILLEGAL. But if you use a proxy or relay, in combination with a bogus from, bogus HELO/EHLO, no remove mechanism?THEN your use of it is illegal. Why do I say that?.I added bold print.

(d) DEFINITIONS- In this section:
`(1) LOSS- The term `loss' has the meaning given that term in section 1030(e) of this title.

(2) MATERIALLY- For purposes of paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (a), header information or registration information is materially falsified if it is altered or concealed in a manner that would impair the ability of a recipient of the message, an Internet access service processing the message on behalf of a recipient, a person alleging a violation of this section, or a law enforcement agency to identify, locate, or respond to a person who initiated the electronic mail message or to investigate the alleged violation.

So the use of a proxy or relay appears to be fine as long as your froms are valid and you did not set them up with the intent to defraud. Setting up domains to protect my privacy is one thing and is legal. Setting them up to rip the world is not.. There is no law that says you must expose your personal data to the world. If it was, imagine all of the fortune 500 companies that incorporate in Delaware. Or Trusts? or Aliases..

Again, another section of the Law. Bold added by me:

(1) PROHIBITION OF FALSE OR MISLEADING TRANSMISSION INFORMATION- It is unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission, to a protected computer, of a commercial electronic mail message, or a transactional or relationship message, that contains, or is accompanied by, header information that is materially false or materially misleading. For purposes of this paragraph--
(A) header information that is technically accurate but includes an originating electronic mail address, domain name, or Internet Protocol address the access to which for purposes of initiating the message was obtained by means of false or fraudulent pretenses or representations shall be considered materially misleading;

OK so I cannot use bogus froms, or get froms with the intent to defraud. And I cannot hack into a ?protected? computer and manipulate it.

(B) a `from' line (the line identifying or purporting to identify a person initiating the message) that accurately identifies any person who initiated the message shall not be considered materially false or materially misleading; and
(C) header information shall be considered materially misleading if it fails to identify accurately a protected computer used to initiate the message because the person initiating the message knowingly uses another protected computer to relay or retransmit the message for purposes of disguising its origin.

So if my froms are valid, remove link works, I use a valid physical address ? does not say onshore, offshore, Mailboxes,Etc. ? then I do not see this as a problem.

This law has AOL, the DMA, Microsoft and others written all over it. They use or will use third party mailers to send out their stuff on their behalf. They also use mail servers that do not report the original server. And I will tell you what?they Won?t stop. The difference is that they can tell you who they are and they insure that the removes and froms work and are valid. And I can prove that?hands down.

The safest method by far, as you already know, is direct mailing and setting up valid froms through a registrar that provides private registrations. A LOT of them are out there. As long as SOMEONE can be contacted if shit hits the fan, you?re fine. Nobody is getting into trouble for making a mistake or trying to do what?s right. This is STILL the LAND OF THE FREE and THE HOME OF THE BRAVE.

And By The Way, look at an anti-spammer post regarding the use of a proxy or relay. Judge for yourself:

From: [email protected] (Sunpoint)
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email
Subject: Re: "Criminal" Open Proxy Hijacking ?????
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 374
Message-ID: <[email protected] >
References: <[email protected] > <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:54:03 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.190.4.3
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: news 1063230843 209.190.4.3 (Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:54:03 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:54:03 EDT

Ron,

After speaking with an Attoney that specializes in Computer Crime for
the FBI in Seattle WA, let me tell you what he said. If someone sets
up a proxy,

HTTPS/SOCKS4/SOCKS4A/SOCKS 5, and they choose not to set any secutity
on that server, then that proxy by nature is OPEN there by giving
IMPLIED CONSENT!

Those 2 words right there are the whole problem with OPEN PROXY!

Refering to your point(s); if a person has not by passed any security
(User name and password) then there is implied consent if it is an
open proxy. If you have implied consent, then you are able to use that computer, until
such time as some type of security measure is implemented, and
bypassed. Once that measure has been implemented, and bypassed, it becomes CRIMINAL, and NOT until such time.

Please take special note that NOTHING is STOLEN until that time. No
security has been breached. If damages occur to that server during
which time that they allow traffic to pass through their machine, that is the sole
responsibility of the server administrator. The term "Interstate
Commerce" ONLY applies if that server is the server where commerce takes
place, NOT if it has traffic relayed through it.

This is an actual post in NANAE, not planted. If you have doubts, check it out further, or go the Direct Mailing route. A LOT of new stuff is coming right down the road a bit J.

What?s YOUR take on this?

$5 submissions · 12-09-2003, 08:02 PM

Change is a good thing. Expect to see traffic quality improve. The Golden Age for this industry is still definitely in the FUTURE.

Quote:

Originally posted by goBigtime

Considering that, say this is doomsday for affilliate programs.... then places for prepaid traffic like Hun, CHoker, and the 43,000 TGP's out there will have a much higher demand.

But most TGP's that display user submitted pics could have their own shakedown.... (2257 violations)

Between Verified by Visa in March, other Visa/MC/IPSP regulations, Aca CIA, DOJ obscenitity cases, and this anti spam thing that will most likely effect affiliate programs....

I would guess that online adult could be about 10% of what it is now by october... surprise.

$5 submissions · 12-09-2003, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by swank
Heres an excerpt from a private board.. This should help those of you clueless people understand this law a bit better.

O Enlighten us, Cardozo!

$5 submissions · 12-09-2003, 08:07 PM

Even if PPS dies as a biz model, its not necessarily bad. Just weeds out the "easy money" type operators/webmasters.

Quote:

Originally posted by goBigtime
50 affiliates applying for the Carls Jr. graveyard shift.

I think the industry lost over 30% of its 'paysite operators' when visa required a $750 registration fee*

*According to Ibills earnings reports if I recall correctly.

SleazyDream · 12-09-2003, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by madthumbs
Hmm .. I get like 10 times as much mainstream spam as I get adult spam .. and I've given my e-mail address to 10 times as many adult related places as I have mainstream ..

Like no shit .. I'm not sure that adult spamming is the primary target of all of the spam regulations .. ?

Just a thought ..

i think the mainstream companies might be buying your name from the adult companies.........

CAHEK · 12-09-2003, 09:17 PM

spam cannot be stopped

its like putting end to smoking

Hooper · 12-09-2003, 10:18 PM

i like the new law.

Eservices2k3 · 12-09-2003, 10:34 PM

It amazes me how anti-spammers are upset with this new law and spammers are actually excited. Granted this law does legalize legitmate mailings, but do you actually believe that the larger ISP's will allow any of these emails to bypass their filter?

Any mailers who think they'll be able to deliver more than 10% of their mail without using proxies, multiple from domains etc. (as I believe the limit is set to 2 domains) better think again. And if you're mailing adult I believe you'll need to put "ADLT" in the subject line. I don't think think anything else can make it any easier to get blocked.

If you do everything legally, major ISPs should not have the right to block you. But until someone is successful in court you can bet your ass your legitimate mail won't reach any inboxes.

Hooper · 12-09-2003, 10:36 PM

i'd rather have 1000 emails filtered into the Bulk mail box at yahoo than 1 that gets by the filters.

maybe thats just me.

i also hang out here: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=206707

dropped9 · 12-09-2003, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hooper
i'd rather have 1000 emails filtered into the Bulk mail box at yahoo than 1 that gets by the filters.

maybe thats just me.

i also hang out here: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=206707

Eservices2k3 · 12-09-2003, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hooper
i'd rather have 1000 emails filtered into the Bulk mail box at yahoo than 1 that gets by the filters.

maybe thats just me.

i also hang out here: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=206707

Fair enough, but I think we'd both rather hit the inbox. What's your take on ISPs such as AOL that don't have a bulk mail folder?

TheSenator · 12-09-2003, 10:44 PM

I like Ju Ju Beans

Hooper · 12-09-2003, 10:45 PM

well i dont need to stroke my gigaego, but i dont think isp's like aol etc will have nearly as much of a need to block if everybody mailing honors the mentioned laws.

maybe it's just my gigaego gettin outta control, but imho aol and other isp's have no problem with UCE, what they have a problem with is the mailer who breaks all the rules... now they can test for broken rules and block :D

dropped9 · 12-09-2003, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hooper
well i dont need to stroke my gigaego, but i dont think isp's like aol etc will have nearly as much of a need to block if everybody mailing honors the mentioned laws.

maybe it's just my gigaego gettin outta control, but imho aol and other isp's have no problem with UCE, what they have a problem with is the mailer who breaks all the rules... now they can test for broken rules and block :D

Ahhhh I understand the point you were trying to make a few posts ago...

But the question is will aol etc etc actually do this? I doubt it... They will just add it to their list of shit to filter...

Eservices2k3 · 12-09-2003, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hooper
well i dont need to stroke my gigaego, but i dont think isp's like aol etc will have nearly as much of a need to block if everybody mailing honors the mentioned laws.

maybe it's just my gigaego gettin outta control, but imho aol and other isp's have no problem with UCE, what they have a problem with is the mailer who breaks all the rules... now they can test for broken rules and block :D

I beg to differ. They HATE spam, what good does it do for them especially when THEY want to spam their own members? I truly doubt they intend on hiring additional staff to differentiate between legitimate and illigitimate UCE. But I hope you're right.

Swanks · 12-09-2003, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Eservices2k3
It amazes me how anti-spammers are upset with this new law and spammers are actually excited. Granted this law does legalize legitmate mailings, but do you actually believe that the larger ISP's will allow any of these emails to bypass their filter?

Any mailers who think they'll be able to deliver more than 10% of their mail without using proxies, multiple from domains etc. (as I believe the limit is set to 2 domains) better think again. And if you're mailing adult I believe you'll need to put "ADLT" in the subject line. I don't think think anything else can make it any easier to get blocked.

If you do everything legally, major ISPs should not have the right to block you. But until someone is successful in court you can bet your ass your legitimate mail won't reach any inboxes.

Have you not heard of direct mailing using IP rotation? As for a limit of domains I dont believe there is any, provided everything is not misleading and is in your name you are free to use whatever. IMO its worthless mailing ADULT to non optin/db processor lists, though places such as AOL can be a goldmine. AOL has an enormous spam problem as it is and im afraid its not going to be stopped anytime soon, as long as their is ways to obtain the emails internally, people will continue to receive spam. As well there is special software out there that operates along with AOL that is capable of almost sending 100% without any blocking..

Eservices2k3 · 12-10-2003, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by swank

Have you not heard of direct mailing using IP rotation? As for a limit of domains I dont believe there is any, provided everything is not misleading and is in your name you are free to use whatever. IMO its worthless mailing ADULT to non optin/db processor lists, though places such as AOL can be a goldmine. AOL has an enormous spam problem as it is and im afraid its not going to be stopped anytime soon, as long as their is ways to obtain the emails internally, people will continue to receive spam. As well there is special software out there that operates along with AOL that is capable of almost sending 100% without any blocking..

"`(4) registers, using information that materially falsifies the identity of the actual registrant, for five or more electronic mail accounts or online user accounts or two or more domain names, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from any combination of such accounts or domain names,"

That's what I was reading, I misunderstood that. I guess as long as you put in valid information when registering for these accounts/domains, you can register as many as you'd like.

ytcracker · 12-10-2003, 01:21 AM

I LOVE THIS LAW I CANT WAIT UNTIL IT PASSES

Eservices2k3 · 12-10-2003, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ytcracker
I LOVE THIS LAW I CANT WAIT UNTIL IT PASSES

What exactly do you love about it?

GrimShawn · 12-10-2003, 05:45 PM

make your program invite only and accept traffic from people you trust

skillfull · 12-10-2003, 09:18 PM

the USA isnt the world
to GWB

GFY

Indy the real one · 12-11-2003, 01:44 AM

What about if I hate say, lensman, and I send bulk e-mail to promote adult.com from a remote location in black Africa to put him in shit.
He will get problem ? And i don't think they will prosecute me in Angola or whatever remote country.

Also all big spammers who make a lot of money will just go in third world countries.I know some who are there already !

This Bush administration is really the more stupid the US had in all his history.
For them it is more important to care about spam than sign treaties against personnal mine or against the planet pollution.
Oh yes I forgot , we have to subsidise Bush as the petrol lobby and weapon lobby does ....

Ready to pay for Bush's next campain in exchange for let us rule the web ?

liquidmoe · 12-11-2003, 01:56 AM

It's wasted legislation. If anyone was really serious about stopping Spam they would just write up a simple clear law. The amount of differentiation here is because Spammers lobbied and did their bit to help keep their business alive. Hence, you now have legislation against scammer spammers, but not against all spammers. So its pretty useless, this will most likely fall under the radar and besides being used to take down scammers, if even that, I dont think we'll hear much about it.

reynold · 12-11-2003, 03:58 AM

Even if Affiliate programs were to end, there are other ways of getting paid for traffic. Maybe join a network on a semi-contractor basis and generate/push traffic to each other.

It will make affiliate programs become more selective and more formal in structure.

CAHEK · 12-11-2003, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Eservices2k3

What exactly do you love about it?

that he will get 3X more spam

jimmyf · 12-11-2003, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by madthumbs
Hmm .. I get like 10 times as much mainstream spam as I get adult spam .. and I've given my e-mail address to 10 times as many adult related places as I have mainstream ..

Like no shit .. I'm not sure that adult spamming is the primary target of all of the spam regulations .. ?

Just a thought ..

This is true I get at least 150 spam's 2 one email addy and maybe 5 are for porn, same with another one out of around 200 spam's I get maybe 4 or 5

12-09-2003, 09:17 PM	#58
CAHEK C.C.C.P. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Novorossiya Posts: 7,041	spam cannot be stopped its like putting end to smoking __________________ Pharma from True-Meds. High converting shop in Europe and USA, fast payouts via BTC !!!

12-09-2003, 10:18 PM	#59
Hooper Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: A Free America Posts: 2,210	i like the new law. __________________ <a href="http://www.adultplatinum.com/"><img src="http://www.adult.com/wmbanners/10dcash-468x60.gif"></a>

12-09-2003, 10:36 PM	#61
Hooper Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: A Free America Posts: 2,210	i'd rather have 1000 emails filtered into the Bulk mail box at yahoo than 1 that gets by the filters. maybe thats just me. i also hang out here: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=206707 __________________ <a href="http://www.adultplatinum.com/"><img src="http://www.adult.com/wmbanners/10dcash-468x60.gif"></a>

12-09-2003, 10:45 PM	#65
Hooper Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: A Free America Posts: 2,210	well i dont need to stroke my gigaego, but i dont think isp's like aol etc will have nearly as much of a need to block if everybody mailing honors the mentioned laws. maybe it's just my gigaego gettin outta control, but imho aol and other isp's have no problem with UCE, what they have a problem with is the mailer who breaks all the rules... now they can test for broken rules and block :D __________________ <a href="http://www.adultplatinum.com/"><img src="http://www.adult.com/wmbanners/10dcash-468x60.gif"></a>

12-10-2003, 01:21 AM	#70
ytcracker stc is the greatest Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: rip sean murray Posts: 12,403	I LOVE THIS LAW I CANT WAIT UNTIL IT PASSES __________________ www.ytcracker.com \| www.digitalgangster.com i love you

12-09-2003, 10:34 PM	#60
Eservices2k3 Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 361	It amazes me how anti-spammers are upset with this new law and spammers are actually excited. Granted this law does legalize legitmate mailings, but do you actually believe that the larger ISP's will allow any of these emails to bypass their filter? Any mailers who think they'll be able to deliver more than 10% of their mail without using proxies, multiple from domains etc. (as I believe the limit is set to 2 domains) better think again. And if you're mailing adult I believe you'll need to put "ADLT" in the subject line. I don't think think anything else can make it any easier to get blocked. If you do everything legally, major ISPs should not have the right to block you. But until someone is successful in court you can bet your ass your legitimate mail won't reach any inboxes.

12-09-2003, 10:44 PM	#64
TheSenator Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 13,336	I like Ju Ju Beans

12-10-2003, 05:45 PM	#72
GrimShawn Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: BONEPRONE MANSION serving drinks! Posts: 8,120	make your program invite only and accept traffic from people you trust

12-10-2003, 09:18 PM	#73
skillfull Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Quebec Calisse Posts: 4,716	the USA isnt the world to GWB GFY __________________ mind at underdark dot cc SEO Analyst Thunder-Ball.net - Member

12-11-2003, 01:44 AM	#74
Indy the real one Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 130	What about if I hate say, lensman, and I send bulk e-mail to promote adult.com from a remote location in black Africa to put him in shit. He will get problem ? And i don't think they will prosecute me in Angola or whatever remote country. Also all big spammers who make a lot of money will just go in third world countries.I know some who are there already ! This Bush administration is really the more stupid the US had in all his history. For them it is more important to care about spam than sign treaties against personnal mine or against the planet pollution. Oh yes I forgot , we have to subsidise Bush as the petrol lobby and weapon lobby does .... Ready to pay for Bush's next campain in exchange for let us rule the web ?

12-11-2003, 01:56 AM	#75
liquidmoe Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: NY Posts: 4,994	It's wasted legislation. If anyone was really serious about stopping Spam they would just write up a simple clear law. The amount of differentiation here is because Spammers lobbied and did their bit to help keep their business alive. Hence, you now have legislation against scammer spammers, but not against all spammers. So its pretty useless, this will most likely fall under the radar and besides being used to take down scammers, if even that, I dont think we'll hear much about it. __________________ Take Luck!

12-11-2003, 03:58 AM	#76
reynold Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Global Traveler Posts: 51,271	Even if Affiliate programs were to end, there are other ways of getting paid for traffic. Maybe join a network on a semi-contractor basis and generate/push traffic to each other. It will make affiliate programs become more selective and more formal in structure.