United States set to Legalize Spamming on 1 January 2004
Moderator: General Moderators
United States set to Legalize Spamming on 1 January 2004
Against the advice of all anti-spam organizations, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed the CAN-SPAM Act, a bill backed overwhelmingly by spammers and dubbed the "YOU-CAN-SPAM" Act because it legalizes spamming instead of banning it. Spam King Alan Ralsky told reporters the passage of the House bill "made my day". Spammers say they will now pour money into installations of new spam servers to heavily ramp up their outgoing spam volumes "all legally".
CAN-SPAM is expected to pass the Senate next week and be signed into law by President Bush on January 1, just in time to kill off California's strong anti-spam law which would have come into effect on January 1 making spamming illegal in California. With the passage of CAN-SPAM, spamming will be officially legal throughout the United States, CAN-SPAM says that 23 million U.S. businesses can all begin spamming all U.S. email addresses as long as they give users a way to opt-out, which users can do by following the instructions of each spammer. Anyone with any sense would of course realize that if CAN-SPAM becomes law, opting out of spammers lists will very likely become the main daytime activity for most U.S. email users in 2004. The second main activity will be sorting through mailboxes crammed with 'legal' spam every few minutes to see if there's any email amongst the spam.
If CAN-SPAM becomes law, from January Europe and the United States will have opposing legislation, as Europe has already introduced legislation making spamming illegal. But 90% of Europe's spam problem originates in the United States where spamming will now be legal, therefore Europe can expect the levels of incoming spam from the United States to more than double during 2004 as U.S. spammers ramp up their output under America's new YOU-CAN-SPAM law.
What this will do for relations between Europe and the United States, is easy to predict with millions of European Internet users already angry at being deluged in American "make-penis-fast" spam. From December 11, spamming will be illegal in the UK, but with 90% of the UK's spam problem originating in the United States, British users will continue to be flooded, now with 'legal' spam from the U.S.
Some spammers are claiming that CAN-SPAM not only allows them to spam legally but that it protects them further by also making it illegal for anti-spam systems to block their spam. In fact, while CAN-SPAM is an abysmally poor law, at least it does have some parts which attempt to address the issue of blocking spam, specifically it states that the law does not impact an ISP's ability to determine and enforce its own policies for transmission of email (i.e: through the use of blocklists or whatever means the ISP likes). This means that spammers cannot sue ISPs for blocking the mail they send claiming that the ISP must accept and deliver it based on the Federal law.
The fact CAN-SPAM makes illegal the use of open proxies or any form of resource misappropriation as well as use of false headers, specifically impacts spammers such as Michigan's Alan Ralsky, as all of Ralsky's spam is sent out with false headers, all through stolen open proxies. So CAN-SPAM does at least give us the law we need to put Ralsky and most of the ROKSO spammers in jail.
To avoid jail, spammers will have to spam from their own resources, readily identifiable IP addresses, rather than steal 3rd party relays and proxies. The problem there, which from January will affect all U.S-based spammers, is that their IPs are constantly listed on the SBL ("Spamhaus Block List"), Spamhaus' free anti-spam system used by ISPs throughout the Internet to reject incoming spam from known spam sources. Therefore one effect of CAN-SPAM we will notice, is that CAN-SPAM will channel spammers straight into Spamhaus' filter which means that in 2004 our SBL system is going to be in even greater demand.
CAN-SPAM is expected to pass the Senate next week and be signed into law by President Bush on January 1, just in time to kill off California's strong anti-spam law which would have come into effect on January 1 making spamming illegal in California. With the passage of CAN-SPAM, spamming will be officially legal throughout the United States, CAN-SPAM says that 23 million U.S. businesses can all begin spamming all U.S. email addresses as long as they give users a way to opt-out, which users can do by following the instructions of each spammer. Anyone with any sense would of course realize that if CAN-SPAM becomes law, opting out of spammers lists will very likely become the main daytime activity for most U.S. email users in 2004. The second main activity will be sorting through mailboxes crammed with 'legal' spam every few minutes to see if there's any email amongst the spam.
If CAN-SPAM becomes law, from January Europe and the United States will have opposing legislation, as Europe has already introduced legislation making spamming illegal. But 90% of Europe's spam problem originates in the United States where spamming will now be legal, therefore Europe can expect the levels of incoming spam from the United States to more than double during 2004 as U.S. spammers ramp up their output under America's new YOU-CAN-SPAM law.
What this will do for relations between Europe and the United States, is easy to predict with millions of European Internet users already angry at being deluged in American "make-penis-fast" spam. From December 11, spamming will be illegal in the UK, but with 90% of the UK's spam problem originating in the United States, British users will continue to be flooded, now with 'legal' spam from the U.S.
Some spammers are claiming that CAN-SPAM not only allows them to spam legally but that it protects them further by also making it illegal for anti-spam systems to block their spam. In fact, while CAN-SPAM is an abysmally poor law, at least it does have some parts which attempt to address the issue of blocking spam, specifically it states that the law does not impact an ISP's ability to determine and enforce its own policies for transmission of email (i.e: through the use of blocklists or whatever means the ISP likes). This means that spammers cannot sue ISPs for blocking the mail they send claiming that the ISP must accept and deliver it based on the Federal law.
The fact CAN-SPAM makes illegal the use of open proxies or any form of resource misappropriation as well as use of false headers, specifically impacts spammers such as Michigan's Alan Ralsky, as all of Ralsky's spam is sent out with false headers, all through stolen open proxies. So CAN-SPAM does at least give us the law we need to put Ralsky and most of the ROKSO spammers in jail.
To avoid jail, spammers will have to spam from their own resources, readily identifiable IP addresses, rather than steal 3rd party relays and proxies. The problem there, which from January will affect all U.S-based spammers, is that their IPs are constantly listed on the SBL ("Spamhaus Block List"), Spamhaus' free anti-spam system used by ISPs throughout the Internet to reject incoming spam from known spam sources. Therefore one effect of CAN-SPAM we will notice, is that CAN-SPAM will channel spammers straight into Spamhaus' filter which means that in 2004 our SBL system is going to be in even greater demand.
- Saethyr
- Forum Contributor
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 9:21 am
- Location: Wichita, Kansas USA
- Contact:
We voted him into office? Funny as I remember he cry babied his way into office. Remember the recounts in a state run by his brother.....my wasn't that something!what an idiot.. i guess that's why our nation was crazy for voting someone into the office that lacks common sense...
Saethyr, Lover of Bush, hater of President Bush
The nation didn't vote him into office (he lost the popular vote by a clear majority). The electoral college did, and even that's a little iffy. Things like this prevent people like me from ever moving to the States. I only hope he is voted out of office before his conquest of the world is complete.infolock wrote: what an idiot.. i guess that's why our nation was crazy for voting someone into the office that lacks common sense...
I don't mean to put this into a political debate, but he has done some good in our country.
he has at least acknowledged ( unlike the democrats ) that God is our righteous leader in our nation.. that goes a long way for me since the democrats passed a law that pretty much forbids God (and yes, that's probably a whole nother discussion in it's own as well..).
secondly, saddam is the one wanting to take over the world. bush did the right thing by breaking up his plans ( unlike clinton who funded him ).
thirdly, the voting this is all speculation. the media says he was outvoted, but they only side with him based on who the voters are for. when the voters were for clinton instead of bush sr, they all sided with him. when they were all for bush sr instead of the other running mate ( can't remember his name ), they sided with him.
so, to take the media's final word on the vote count is like taking my word that i had sex with brittany spears for 2 months while collaberating with einstein with my psychic powers
maybe the votes did go for gore ( which i surely hope they didn't ), or maybe they didn't. Gore, imo, would not have been the greatest person to have as a president. he was..well, gore.
fourth, i too hope that someone else replaces bush.. preferably another republican because all the democrats do is lie and spread more lies when things don't go their way. the democratic represenatatives are like the fox news reports. both completely unawair of such a thing called credentionals and supporting anyone outside of the democratic party.
fifth, he gave us all as much money as the government would allow him to. he would have passed another bill giving us money (which has all helped our nation to come out of this depression-state we were in for about 2 years when clinton left us all in the gutter and ladderless to get out of ), but they stopped any other cases he could give out.
he also has given medicare the just treatment he promised.
also helped out with the schools like he promised.
but all in all, he is definately not a wise money person. he should have saved more than he spended, but when it all comes down it, i'm glad for what he did give us.
he has at least acknowledged ( unlike the democrats ) that God is our righteous leader in our nation.. that goes a long way for me since the democrats passed a law that pretty much forbids God (and yes, that's probably a whole nother discussion in it's own as well..).
secondly, saddam is the one wanting to take over the world. bush did the right thing by breaking up his plans ( unlike clinton who funded him ).
thirdly, the voting this is all speculation. the media says he was outvoted, but they only side with him based on who the voters are for. when the voters were for clinton instead of bush sr, they all sided with him. when they were all for bush sr instead of the other running mate ( can't remember his name ), they sided with him.
so, to take the media's final word on the vote count is like taking my word that i had sex with brittany spears for 2 months while collaberating with einstein with my psychic powers
maybe the votes did go for gore ( which i surely hope they didn't ), or maybe they didn't. Gore, imo, would not have been the greatest person to have as a president. he was..well, gore.
fourth, i too hope that someone else replaces bush.. preferably another republican because all the democrats do is lie and spread more lies when things don't go their way. the democratic represenatatives are like the fox news reports. both completely unawair of such a thing called credentionals and supporting anyone outside of the democratic party.
fifth, he gave us all as much money as the government would allow him to. he would have passed another bill giving us money (which has all helped our nation to come out of this depression-state we were in for about 2 years when clinton left us all in the gutter and ladderless to get out of ), but they stopped any other cases he could give out.
he also has given medicare the just treatment he promised.
also helped out with the schools like he promised.
but all in all, he is definately not a wise money person. he should have saved more than he spended, but when it all comes down it, i'm glad for what he did give us.
Last edited by infolock on Tue Dec 09, 2003 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
you had sex with brittany spears?..ewwwww..
one question..where are the weapons of mass destruction? if sadam had em, i dont think he would run, who would? by now he would've done something other then showig up occasionally to kiss babies (we are the ones voteing, why do they always kiss babies?!?..not that i want a kiss or anything lol)..
as for spam..UK people are gona suffer for bush's idiotic thinking, i dont see anything great about him at this moment.
he prolly doesn't even know what spam is...any one got his email address? lol. cos if we forward our junk mail to him then he may re-think what he is doing.
one question..where are the weapons of mass destruction? if sadam had em, i dont think he would run, who would? by now he would've done something other then showig up occasionally to kiss babies (we are the ones voteing, why do they always kiss babies?!?..not that i want a kiss or anything lol)..
as for spam..UK people are gona suffer for bush's idiotic thinking, i dont see anything great about him at this moment.
he prolly doesn't even know what spam is...any one got his email address? lol. cos if we forward our junk mail to him then he may re-think what he is doing.
- Bill H
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 1136
- Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2002 10:16 am
- Location: San Diego CA
- Contact:
Firstly, it wasn't Bush, it was the legislative branch that dreamed this bill up and passed it. Bush didn't sponsor or press for this bill, he merely didn't veto it.
Secondly, spamming is not illegal now, so this bill does not create legality where none previously existed. Not that anyone seriously thinks it will actually do much to help, but lets not all run screaming into insanity here.
Secondly, spamming is not illegal now, so this bill does not create legality where none previously existed. Not that anyone seriously thinks it will actually do much to help, but lets not all run screaming into insanity here.
- Saethyr
- Forum Contributor
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 9:21 am
- Location: Wichita, Kansas USA
- Contact:
That would be hilarious!he prolly doesn't even know what spam is...any one got his email address? lol. cos if we forward our junk mail to him then he may re-think what he is doing.
straight from the whitehouse.gov website!
President George W. Bush: president@whitehouse.gov
Vice President Richard Cheney: vice.president@whitehouse.gov
now these are probably monitored but 1.5 million folks forwarding their spam might get some attention!!!
Saethyr
that question never gets tiring to answer, as it's quit simple.one question..where are the weapons of mass destruction? if sadam had em, i dont think he would run, who would?
saddam has for years built up his money to strengthen his army, and pay top dollar for womd or scientists to build them. saddam, i don't think, had any plans of using them, but having them alone was enough.
simply put, if he used the weapons, everyone would use theirs against him. he was able to build these weapons with short range, therefore making it impossible for himto strike countries further away than say neighboring countries.
so, what happend here? We wanted to go in right away and prove that he had them, but again i asked what happend? some morons on the UN council said " NO, you can NOT go in until you give them 2-3 months prior notice ". so we had to sit back for a month ( all the while giving him time to hide them through means of their tunnels and trucks ), until we could convince them to let us in. by then, he had MORE than enough time to hide them and/or take them to a neighboring country that supports him..
if you are a betting man, here is a nice little dinger for you.
I bet he either is still carrying them with him in his hiding place where no one seems to be able to find him, or he hid them in a country in the complete opposite direction in which he is currently hiding.
that would be the 2 most logical steps for handling such weapons, and keeping yourself clear, making you look like a victim being persued on false accusations.
but let's ask another question. if saddam was so very innocent, why did he run? why did he refuse us access to their scientists and other portions of their country?
you have to understand the history of saddam before you can say he is not capable of doing these things. saddam is a mastermind that compares only to that of hitler. he is cold hearted, and worse, he is a genius, which makes for one of the worst combinations in a human being. i could tell you the entire history, but that's for another time.
guess i shouldn't have posted all this in this thread, but the voice of sanity had to be heard
now