![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||
Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. |
![]() ![]() |
|
Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed. |
|
Thread Tools |
![]() |
#1 |
So Fucking Banned
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 3,129
|
![]() June 16, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration said it will not create a national do-not-spam registry to discourage unwanted e-mail, fearing it could backfire and become a target list for new victims.
The Federal Trade Commission told Congress on Tuesday that senders of unwanted sales pitches might mine such a registry for names. Its chairman, Timothy Muris, quipped that consumers "will be spammed if we do a registry and spammed if we do not." The commission was obligated by lawmakers to consider the proposal under the "can spam" legislation that Bush signed in December, an idea patterned after the FTC's enormously successful do-not-call registry to limit telemarketing calls. But the FTC concluded that on the Internet, unlike within the highly regulated U.S. telephone network, regulators would be "largely powerless to identify those responsible for misusing the registry." Muris said that, given the risks of consumers adding their names to a do-not-spam registry, "I wouldn't put my e-mail address on such a list." Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., the leading supporter in Congress for a no-spam registry, said the FTC's decision was disappointing. "The registry is not the perfect solution but it is the best solution we have," Schumer said. Regulators instead proposed broad adoption of new authentication technology that will make it more difficult to disguise the origin of unwanted e-mails. Several proposals from leading technology companies, including Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), are under consideration by industry. "A national do-not-e-mail registry, without a system in place to authenticate the origin of e-mail messages, would fail to reduce the burden of spam and may even increase the amount of spam received by consumers," the commission said. If new authentication plans fail to emerge, the FTC will convene a federal advisory committee to determine whether the g overnment could require Internet providers to adopt one. "Without effective authentication of e-mail, any registry is doomed to fail," the commission said. The government said it was particularly worried about issues of security and privacy with respect to children whose addresses might be added to such a registry. "A registry that identified accounts used by children, for example, could assist legitimate marketers to avoid sending inappropriate messages to children," the commission said. "At the same time, however, the Internet's most dangerous users, including pedophiles, also could use this information to target children." Also Tuesday, key House members on telecommunications issues moved to overturn regulations set to take effect next year aimed at preventing homes and offices from receiving junk faxes. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce telecommunications subcommittee, said he planned to introduce a bill Wednesday to rescind Federal Communications Commission regulations that requires a recipient to receive a commercial fax only if they have given prior consent. |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
So Fucking Banned
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 3,129
|
spammed if you do, spammed if ya don't
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Too lazy to set a custom title
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,393
|
They could always release the list in a non reversible encrypted format. The entries could still be broken but due to the CPU time required it would be impractical to try.
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |