Subject: [Asrg] 2. Legal - FTC approves label for sexually-explicit spam

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:49:11 -0400

Original press release:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/04/adultlabel.htm

FTC Adopts Rule That Requires Notice That Spam Contains 
Sexually-Explicit Material

Starting May 19th 2004, spam that contains sexually oriented material 
must include the warning “SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT: ” in the subject line or 
face fines for violations of federal law. The CAN-SPAM Act, passed by 
Congress in 2003, directed the Federal Trade Commission to adopt a rule 
requiring a mark or notice to be included in spam that contains sexually 
oriented material. The purpose of the notice is to inform recipients 
that a spam message contains sexually oriented material and to make it 
easier to filter out messages they do not wish to receive. Establishing 
the mark was one of several actions Congress directed the Commission to 
undertake by enacting the CAN-SPAM Act, which was signed into law on 
December 16, 2003. The CAN-SPAM Act required the Commission to prescribe 
the mark or notice within 120 days after passage of the Act.
....

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Barry Shein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:04:08 -0400

>Sexually-Explicit Material

Spam?

SPAM?

Isn't that like saying from here on packets of heroin must have a
label "may cause drowsiness"?

Are the people at the FTC really that clueless as to word a notice on
their site like that?

I hope Hormel sues the crap out of them.

In fact, I hope they're all fired.

SPAM implies a CRIMINAL behavior, if it's SPAM then it's in violation
of CAN-SPAM, at the very least.

Well, we all know (or should by now) that the only way spammers can
operate is via criminal means, it's the basis of their entire business
model.

Morons. Seriously. Morons.

Worse. Friends of criminals.

That's it, the govt has yielded the whole goddamned net to criminals.

I know Bush hates the internet but this is getting out of hand.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | [email-masked]           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World              | Public Access Internet     | Since 1989     *oo*

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 15 Apr 2004 03:33:07 -0000

>label "may cause drowsiness"?

Yes.

>Are the people at the FTC really that clueless as to word a notice on

The FTC staff has clues out the wazoo.  Unfortunately our Elected
Legislators passed the CAN SPAM act in which one of the inane sections
tells the FTC to define a tag for porn spam, and FTC employees do not
remain employed by failing to do what their bosses tell them to.

>I know Bush hates the internet but this is getting out of hand.

Based on my conversation with him at a spyware hearing last month, I'd
place a lot of responsibility on Senator Burns who still thinks that
CAN SPAM is a fine piece of legislation.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
http://www.taugh.com

---

From: mathew <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:15:29 -0500

I can guess the answer, but does anyone have any statistics showing 
spammers actually beginning to comply with the CAN-SPAM act?

mathew
-- 
<URL:http://www.pobox.com/~meta/>

---

From: JC Dill <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:12:51 -0700

>spammers actually beginning to comply with the CAN-SPAM act?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

To answer your question, "no".  In fact, I have seen a huge increase in 
spam in the past few months, and the percentage of spam that even attempts 
to comply with the I-CAN-SPAM act is well under 1%.  I haven't bothered to 
do the stats, I just notice when I look at the glurge that makes it thru my 
filters that every now and then (once a month or so, out of the 10s of 
thousands of spams I get each month) I get an email that doesn't have 
forged headers, has what appears to be valid opt-out instructions, etc.

jc