FTC is looking into feasibility of a ‘do not e-mail’ list

bobbi · 07-02-2003, 09:51 PM

IF MORE THAN 12 million people rushed to put their names onto the Federal Trade Commission’s Do Not Call database, imagine how many would sign up for a national “no spam” registry.
It’s arguable whether the flood of unwanted commercial e-mail messages is worse for consumers than annoying dinnertime telemarketing calls, but there’s no doubt that spam is getting worse. By the end of the year, more than 1 trillion spam messages will flood users’ in-boxes, according to research firm IDC.
In fact, the ban on telemarketing could result in companies bumping up their e-mail marketing efforts to reach potential customers, industry experts charge.
Of the handful of anti-spam bills working their way through Congress right now, only one, introduced by Sen. Charles E. Schumer in June, mandates a national “do not e-mail” registry.

In the New York Democrat’s legislation, a national “no spam” list would allow consumers to collect from $500 to $1,500 from spammers who violate the law. The FTC could sue companies who violate the registry for as much as $100,000 and repeat offenders could go to jail.
Until the “do not call” list went into effect last Friday, the Schumer bill, which is called the “Stop Pornography and Abusive Marketing Act,” lacked the level of support of other anti-spam legislation such as the “Can Spam” act sponsored by Conrad Burns, (R., Montana) and Ron Wyden (D., Oregon).
The Burns-Wyden bill, which has been unanimously approved by the Senate Commerce Committee, allows the FTC to study the feasibility of a “no spam” list, but doesn’t require it.
Instead, Burns-Wyden attempts to limit unwanted commercial e-mail by requiring consumers to “opt-out” of e-mail by notifying companies that they don’t want to receive messages from them.
But the hugely favorable consumer response to the new telemarketing restrictions could boost political interest in a “no spam” list, industry experts believe.
“If the last few days mean anything, it’s that ‘do not call’ is loudly popular with consumers,” said Ray Everett-Church, chief privacy officer of ePrivacy Group, a Los Angeles technology consulting firm and founder of the Coalition against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail. “Until the [“no spam” list] is added to Burns-Wyden, we’re not likely to see any bill move forward with any positive consumer support behind it.”
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/the-break-room/14946-ftc-looking-into-feasibility-do-not.html
Phil Singer, Schumer’s communications director agrees that the telemarketing ban will draw attention to Schumer’s push for a “no spam” list.
“Ultimately the extraordinary level of spam people continue to get will put us over the top,” he said.
The FTC will begin examining a “do not e-mail” list because it could possibly be added to approved legislation, according to commissioner Orson Swindle .

Link:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/933516.asp?0dm=T257T

bobbi · 07-02-2003, 09:57 PM

Personally I don't think they could make data banks big enough to hold all the people who would sign up for a "DO NOT SPAM" program.

deadserious · 07-04-2003, 01:02 AM

I don't think that would really help out with spam. Spammers already do everything possible to make sure the messages come from an unkown address and forge all the headers so you can't track them back. There's software made for spamming and I don't really think much will change just because there's a database like that. Well I guess it could make it so they can say wow, there's only a million email addresses in the database, that means I can find 100000000000000000000000000000000 more to add to spam list lol.

bobbi · 07-04-2003, 10:39 PM

lol truth be known if people did sign up for a NO spam list, it would be a list that would be sold to spammers.

DarkDevil · 07-04-2003, 11:17 PM

Heh, its sorta like the remove feature on spam lists. I swear, 9 times out of 10 its really a trick to sign up for other spam lists. or a confirmation that your email really exists, in the case of blind emailing...

bobbi · 07-11-2003, 12:21 AM

Aparently they are really serious about putting a stop to spam e-mails, which couldn't come any sooner.

URL:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/936568.asp?0dm=C218T

DarkDevil · 07-11-2003, 01:13 AM

The problem is, and i'm not sure if its discussed in any of these articles because i only read half of them... but not all spam comes from the United States... what they gonna start doing? send task forces over seas to fight spammerism?

07-02-2003, 09:51 PM	THREAD STARTER #1 (permalink)
bobbi NamePros Regular Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 650	FTC is looking into feasibility of a ‘do not e-mail’ list IF MORE THAN 12 million people rushed to put their names onto the Federal Trade Commission’s Do Not Call database, imagine how many would sign up for a national “no spam” registry. It’s arguable whether the flood of unwanted commercial e-mail messages is worse for consumers than annoying dinnertime telemarketing calls, but there’s no doubt that spam is getting worse. By the end of the year, more than 1 trillion spam messages will flood users’ in-boxes, according to research firm IDC. In fact, the ban on telemarketing could result in companies bumping up their e-mail marketing efforts to reach potential customers, industry experts charge. Of the handful of anti-spam bills working their way through Congress right now, only one, introduced by Sen. Charles E. Schumer in June, mandates a national “do not e-mail” registry. In the New York Democrat’s legislation, a national “no spam” list would allow consumers to collect from $500 to $1,500 from spammers who violate the law. The FTC could sue companies who violate the registry for as much as $100,000 and repeat offenders could go to jail. Until the “do not call” list went into effect last Friday, the Schumer bill, which is called the “Stop Pornography and Abusive Marketing Act,” lacked the level of support of other anti-spam legislation such as the “Can Spam” act sponsored by Conrad Burns, (R., Montana) and Ron Wyden (D., Oregon). The Burns-Wyden bill, which has been unanimously approved by the Senate Commerce Committee, allows the FTC to study the feasibility of a “no spam” list, but doesn’t require it. Instead, Burns-Wyden attempts to limit unwanted commercial e-mail by requiring consumers to “opt-out” of e-mail by notifying companies that they don’t want to receive messages from them. But the hugely favorable consumer response to the new telemarketing restrictions could boost political interest in a “no spam” list, industry experts believe. “If the last few days mean anything, it’s that ‘do not call’ is loudly popular with consumers,” said Ray Everett-Church, chief privacy officer of ePrivacy Group, a Los Angeles technology consulting firm and founder of the Coalition against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail. “Until the [“no spam” list] is added to Burns-Wyden, we’re not likely to see any bill move forward with any positive consumer support behind it.” ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/the-break-room/14946-ftc-looking-into-feasibility-do-not.html Phil Singer, Schumer’s communications director agrees that the telemarketing ban will draw attention to Schumer’s push for a “no spam” list. “Ultimately the extraordinary level of spam people continue to get will put us over the top,” he said. The FTC will begin examining a “do not e-mail” list because it could possibly be added to approved legislation, according to commissioner Orson Swindle . Link: http://www.msnbc.com/news/933516.asp?0dm=T257T

07-04-2003, 11:17 PM	#5 (permalink)
DarkDevil NamePros Regular Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 481	Heh, its sorta like the remove feature on spam lists. I swear, 9 times out of 10 its really a trick to sign up for other spam lists. or a confirmation that your email really exists, in the case of blind emailing... __________________ Sometimes I lay awake at night and I ask "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a little voice says "This is going to take more than one night"

07-11-2003, 01:13 AM	#7 (permalink)
DarkDevil NamePros Regular Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 481	The problem is, and i'm not sure if its discussed in any of these articles because i only read half of them... but not all spam comes from the United States... what they gonna start doing? send task forces over seas to fight spammerism? __________________ Sometimes I lay awake at night and I ask "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a little voice says "This is going to take more than one night"

07-02-2003, 09:57 PM	THREAD STARTER #2 (permalink)
bobbi NamePros Regular Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 650	Personally I don't think they could make data banks big enough to hold all the people who would sign up for a "DO NOT SPAM" program.

07-04-2003, 01:02 AM	#3 (permalink)
deadserious Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 1,255	I don't think that would really help out with spam. Spammers already do everything possible to make sure the messages come from an unkown address and forge all the headers so you can't track them back. There's software made for spamming and I don't really think much will change just because there's a database like that. Well I guess it could make it so they can say wow, there's only a million email addresses in the database, that means I can find 100000000000000000000000000000000 more to add to spam list lol.

07-04-2003, 10:39 PM	THREAD STARTER #4 (permalink)
bobbi NamePros Regular Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 650	lol truth be known if people did sign up for a NO spam list, it would be a list that would be sold to spammers.

07-11-2003, 12:21 AM	THREAD STARTER #6 (permalink)
bobbi NamePros Regular Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 650	Aparently they are really serious about putting a stop to spam e-mails, which couldn't come any sooner. URL: http://www.msnbc.com/news/936568.asp?0dm=C218T

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)