IT'S OFFICIAL - CAN-SPAM signed by Bush. - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

stocktrader23 · 12-16-2003, 11:24 AM

50 legal spams.

Pad · 12-16-2003, 11:27 AM

:') Praise the lord

SPAM 4LIFE

skillfull · 12-16-2003, 11:32 AM

law text
http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html

CAHEK · 12-16-2003, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by skillfull
law text
http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html

SEC. 5. OTHER PROTECTIONS AGAINST UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL.

(a) REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSMISSION OF MESSAGES-

(1) PROHIBITION OF FALSE OR MISLEADING TRANSMISSION INFORMATION-
Use a Dedicated Mailing Server Out of China
(A) header information Don't Use Proxies or Relays
(B) a `from' line Use Real Froms

(2) PROHIBITION OF DECEPTIVE SUBJECT HEADINGS-
Don't Use False or Misleading Subject Lines

(3) Inclusion of return address

(5) INCLUSION OF IDENTIFIER, OPT-OUT, AND PHYSICAL ADDRESS IN COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL

Use Real Froms, which you can use to remove removal request. Also, Requires us to have the standard removal links (Plus Congress gives us some tips, Remove Links, with a Options Page so they can either Totally Opt Out or Opt In to Other Mailing Lists. And the third thing, I really don't like, is you have to INCLUDE A PHYSICAL POSTAL ADDRESS (I.E. Home/Office/PO Box Address.) So, they can easily track us down, if we break the law...

(d) REQUIREMENT TO PLACE WARNING LABELS ON COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL CONTAINING SEXUALLY ORIENTED MATERIAL-
Use ADULT/ADV Warning Lables

Basicly that is what the new laws requires from Mailers, not too bad, still feasible..........

Some other Interesting Stuff, Concerning Sponsors:

SEC. 6. BUSINESSES KNOWINGLY PROMOTED BY ELECTRONIC MAIL WITH FALSE OR MISLEADING TRANSMISSION INFORMATION.

(a) IN GENERAL- It is unlawful for a person to promote, or allow the promotion of
Here's what scares me the most: No Sponsors = No Spammers, so it looks like there going after the sponsors as well Sounds like their going to hold the Sponsor more responsible now, which means less sponsors and sponsor turnning over all of our info to the Feds to save their ass'es.....

SEC. 11. IMPROVING ENFORCEMENT BY PROVIDING REWARDS FOR INFORMATION ABOUT VIOLATIONS; LABELING.
This is really messed up, This section keeps the DAMN ANTI's employed.........

And you gotta love this final one
SEC. 8. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.

? NO EFFECT ON POLICIES OF PROVIDERS OF INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on the lawfulness or unlawfulness, under any other provision of law, of the adoption, implementation, or enforcement by a provider of Internet access service of a policy of declining to transmit, route, relay, handle, or store certain types of electronic mail messages.

Basicly, this MEANS, if you follow the letter of the LAW, AOL, MSN, ISP's, Spamcop.net, etc can keep blocking your emails................

Theo · 12-16-2003, 11:41 AM

(d) REQUIREMENT TO PLACE WARNING LABELS ON COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL CONTAINING SEXUALLY ORIENTED MATERIAL-
Use ADULT/ADV Warning Lables

this one will be the problem. A simple command on outlook can filter all the legal spams.

TheEnforcer · 12-16-2003, 11:44 AM

This laws ramifications will be fun to watch. I can see the possibility of a big "Oh Shit, what did I do?" on Capitol Hill!!

Gemini · 12-16-2003, 11:51 AM

I believe the phone companies have the technology to filter, they just don't have the equipment... and it would be very cost prohibitive to put that in... more than the 25 cents to $10 they tack on for other services which wouldn't go over well with consumers... so they waited for the government to deal with it.

On ISP's... I'm betting the courts go with what I said... it's common sense. Use a different ISP if you dislike that one blocks spam. No one is twisting someones arm.

Bottom line is, How MANY fools actually WANT spam?!?! lol Law usually prevails for the majority or we'd have legal murderers don't you think?! If you ask your mailman nicely, you never see junkmail either... legal or not, it's done all over the country every day. ;-)

I'm still betting that the jerk spammers that send to any addy they can get won't conform or stay conformed for long.

webair · 12-16-2003, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by stocktrader23

As of right now you only have to operate your own opt out list, so each business has to be opted out of seperately. They are looking into a national do not spam list but it's not part of the deal right now.

thanks

titmowse · 12-16-2003, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soul_Rebel
(d) REQUIREMENT TO PLACE WARNING LABELS ON COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL CONTAINING SEXUALLY ORIENTED MATERIAL-
Use ADULT/ADV Warning Lables

this one will be the problem. A simple command on outlook can filter all the legal spams.

ok. i'm confused. i look at the text on this page and i see that warning labels text.

but when i look at the bill on the library of congress site, i can't find it.

ronbotx · 12-16-2003, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Furious_Male

I am curious about this as well. Is it legal to black list email marketers that are marketing in compliance with US law? Will it be legal for big providers like AOL to continue to block these "law abiding" marketers?

The Blocklists will become even more powerful as a result of this law. Any host , ISP or individual can block anyone they want. They can't be touched. ISPs can continue to terminate spammers in violation of their own term of service irregardless of the new law. Anti-spammers can get bounties( percentage of fines) for helping track down anyone who doesn't follow all the rules if they are prosecuted. The Feds and the States can go after violaters.

.....and the "No Spam" list which requires a confirmed "opt-in" still may be instituted by the FTC.

ronbotx · 12-16-2003, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by titmowse

ok. i'm confused. i look at the text on this page and i see that warning labels text.

but when i look at the bill on the library of congress site, i can't find it.

Porn SPAM is handled differently and is supposed to "labelled" which means you are right; it would be very easy to fileter out. Problem is, they haven't really defined what and how it will be labelled. It the laws seems somewhat vague, confusing, and non-specific, it is.

This law was backed by the DMA(DirectMarketingAssoc) and is designed to help the mainsleaze spammers like Microsoft, AT&T, etc... NOT the smaller porn and penis pill spammers.

rebel23 · 12-16-2003, 06:27 PM

I think this bit is quite significant for current spammers/sponsors in the US:

<b>The new law makes it a misdemeanor crime subject to up to one year in jail for intentionally sending UCE with falsified header information and sets out civil penalties for a host of other common spamming practices used to obtain e-mail addresses, including harvesting, dictionary attacks and spoofing.

Hijacking computers or open relays for the purpose of sending unlawful spam are also proscribed.

Under the law, businesses knowingly promoted in UCE with false or misleading header information are also subject to FTC penalties and enforcement remedies, regardless of whether the FTC is able to identify the spammer who initiated the e-mail.</b>

looky_lou · 12-16-2003, 06:30 PM

Forwarding my email to GW finally paid off

AdultKing · 12-16-2003, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by goBigtime
I wonder if people will start suing the blacklists for unfair business practices and whatever else... I have a feeling blacklists are going to be injunctioned to death in the next six months.

Nobody is going to be sued for publishing a list of spam sources. Any lawsuit would fail if it were launched. Several have tried already and failed.

As the operator of a server, if I want to block mail I will. My server my rules. You dont like it ? Stiff.. I don't care.

goBigtime · 12-17-2003, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Furious_Male

I am curious about this as well. Is it legal to black list email marketers that are marketing in compliance with US law? Will it be legal for big providers like AOL to continue to block these "law abiding" marketers?

I think there will be a lot of lawsuits filed within a couple months of this taking effect.

Then there is the whole question about California...

California gets to have their new laws in effect for 4 months (the 120 day grace period that Can-Spam allows)... how is that going to work? California is proabably pissed off that their law got overrode by a 'weaker' fed law.

NBDesign · 12-17-2003, 08:58 AM

So does this overrule the state rulings that have imposed severe fines for sending spam? Washington, California and I think there are a couple of others.

icu33774 · 12-17-2003, 09:08 AM

Im been reading this thread and i must say i am in shock! I can not belive that they would pass a bill like this. It is tuff enough for a legit webmaster to make a good liveing in this business with all these spammers out there all ready. All bush did was give them a green light for the spammers to take even more money from the legit webmasters............

stocktrader23 · 12-17-2003, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by icu33774
Im been reading this thread and i must say i am in shock! I can not belive that they would pass a bill like this. It is tuff enough for a legit webmaster to make a good liveing in this business with all these spammers out there all ready. All bush did was give them a green light for the spammers to take even more money from the legit webmasters............

My dogs breath smells like poo.

Wiz · 12-17-2003, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by icu33774
Im been reading this thread and i must say i am in shock! I can not belive that they would pass a bill like this. It is tuff enough for a legit webmaster to make a good liveing in this business with all these spammers out there all ready. All bush did was give them a green light for the spammers to take even more money from the legit webmasters............

Cry me a river !

$5 submissions · 12-18-2003, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by stocktrader23
I wonder if hosting companies will start offering legal spammers servers. Now that spamming is cool if you follow the rules what will upstream providers and such think.

Hmmm the practical effect would be... Use a proxy or other device to hide your identity, you go to jail. The other practical effect would be massive scrubbing of LEGAL spam since spam filtering services know now where and who is sending the stuff.

Spam is ubiquitous though. Email spam is just one permutation (a mature one at that) of unsolicited marketing, there's tons of other approaches.

Wherever people communicate...the opportunity for spam exists.

This law only covers the most obvious forms of spam

12-16-2003, 11:24 AM	#51
stocktrader23 Let's do some business. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: The dirty south. Posts: 18,781	50 legal spams. __________________ Hands Free Adult - Join Once, Earn For Life "I try to make a habit of bouncing my eyes up to the face of a beautiful woman, and often repeat “not mine” in my head or even verbally. She’s not mine. God has her set aside. She’s not mine. She’s His little girl, and she needs me to fight for her by keeping my eyes where they should be."

12-16-2003, 11:27 AM	#52
Pad elephants dont swat flies Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,262	:') Praise the lord SPAM 4LIFE __________________

12-16-2003, 11:32 AM	#53
skillfull Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Quebec Calisse Posts: 4,716	law text http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html __________________ mind at underdark dot cc SEO Analyst Thunder-Ball.net - Member

12-16-2003, 11:44 AM	#56
TheEnforcer Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 2,855	This laws ramifications will be fun to watch. I can see the possibility of a big "Oh Shit, what did I do?" on Capitol Hill!! __________________ Hit me up below for all your advertising needs!

12-16-2003, 11:51 AM	#57
Gemini Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: o-HI-o Posts: 7,183	I believe the phone companies have the technology to filter, they just don't have the equipment... and it would be very cost prohibitive to put that in... more than the 25 cents to $10 they tack on for other services which wouldn't go over well with consumers... so they waited for the government to deal with it. On ISP's... I'm betting the courts go with what I said... it's common sense. Use a different ISP if you dislike that one blocks spam. No one is twisting someones arm. Bottom line is, How MANY fools actually WANT spam?!?! lol Law usually prevails for the majority or we'd have legal murderers don't you think?! If you ask your mailman nicely, you never see junkmail either... legal or not, it's done all over the country every day. ;-) I'm still betting that the jerk spammers that send to any addy they can get won't conform or stay conformed for long. __________________ <center><a target="_blank" href="http://dev.datedollars.com/index.php?s=signup&aid=535&cfg=aac"><img border="0" src="http://216.130.172.224/gfy/gsig.gif" width="490" height="100"></a><br><a href="http://dev.datedollars.com/index.php?s=signup&aid=535&cfg=aac" target="_blank"><b><font face="Arial"><font color="#FF99FF"> Buy me away from Slavedriver Smokey!<br>It's May Sig Sweeps!<font></b></center>

12-16-2003, 11:41 AM	#55
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	(d) REQUIREMENT TO PLACE WARNING LABELS ON COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL CONTAINING SEXUALLY ORIENTED MATERIAL- Use ADULT/ADV Warning Lables this one will be the problem. A simple command on outlook can filter all the legal spams.

12-16-2003, 06:27 PM	#62
rebel23 Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 817	I think this bit is quite significant for current spammers/sponsors in the US: <b>The new law makes it a misdemeanor crime subject to up to one year in jail for intentionally sending UCE with falsified header information and sets out civil penalties for a host of other common spamming practices used to obtain e-mail addresses, including harvesting, dictionary attacks and spoofing. Hijacking computers or open relays for the purpose of sending unlawful spam are also proscribed. Under the law, businesses knowingly promoted in UCE with false or misleading header information are also subject to FTC penalties and enforcement remedies, regardless of whether the FTC is able to identify the spammer who initiated the e-mail.</b>

12-16-2003, 06:30 PM	#63
looky_lou Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 1,771	Forwarding my email to GW finally paid off __________________ PUSSY - PUSSY - PUSSY! Wet & Puffy - Wet & Pissy - We Like To Suck Puffy Cash

12-17-2003, 08:58 AM	#66
NBDesign Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: The other side of Hell Posts: 5,814	So does this overrule the state rulings that have imposed severe fines for sending spam? Washington, California and I think there are a couple of others. __________________ Use Lensman's program and get the most for your hard earned traffic. Get Heidi for your site Here. Lots of sets to choose from. She makes a great Addition to any site. Grab one Grab All.

12-17-2003, 09:08 AM	#67
icu33774 Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 1,573	Im been reading this thread and i must say i am in shock! I can not belive that they would pass a bill like this. It is tuff enough for a legit webmaster to make a good liveing in this business with all these spammers out there all ready. All bush did was give them a green light for the spammers to take even more money from the legit webmasters............