Waiting For Muris To Opt In
from the going-down-the-wrong-path? dept
Since the recent launch of the national "do not call" list, there has been more and more talk about a corresponding "do not spam" list. Now the Washington Post is taking up the issue, suggesting that it's all in the hands of the FTC chair who created the "do not call" list, and that he's receiving so much praise for that list, that he could push through a similar "do not spam" list. The problem, of course, is that he realizes, like so many of us do, that a "do not spam" list would not be even remotely effective, and could backfire. While most telemarketers, while often sneaky and slightly underhanded, have tried to be legit, spammers don't care at all. Also, it's much easier to track down a caller than a spammer. With spammers increasingly covering their tracks and moving offshore, a "do not spam" list would become more of a target list for spammers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
Also, a Do Not Spam list, as you mention, is the absolute dumbest idea anyone could possibly come up with. It's more like a Please Spam Me list.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
There could even be a national Do-Not-SPAM registry, but the tricky part is how to make sure the only people who can access the list are ISP mail administrators. Maybe make it a 'black box' list that noone can see, but ISPs can run their list of known e-mail addresses through 'black box' and see what names fall out the other side and consider those e-mail addresses as not on the list... but I'm sure that SPAMmers would find some way to abuse that as well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another idea
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
Oops. Bad mistake. Fixed now. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not necessarily
I'm fairly certain that cryptographically secure hashing could prevent that from happening. That is, it is possible to distribute the do-not-spam list in a way that lets spammers know if an address of theirs is on it but can't be used to extract the actual addresses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
The "Do Not Call" list targets the seller/telemarketer of the good and services and fines for violations will be assessed on the seller/telemarketer.
All of the proposed "Do Not Spam/Anti-spam" legislation targets the spammer, not the seller of the goods and services. If anti-spam legistation targets the advertiser/seller, not the sender of the message, spamming will stop. The spammer can hide, etc. but the seller has to be identified in order to make the sale.
If you applied the anti-spam logic to the Do-Not-Call list, they would be fining the phone company for letting the telemarketer call you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not necessarily
[ link to this | view in thread ]