BY AHMAD SAYUTHI
ELECTRONIC mail, which has become indispensable for business and personal
communications, is now a victim of its success. Every entrepreneur wants to reach
the whole world, and as a result, users face a deluge of messages in their
e-mail inbox.
Despite all the attempts to control spam (unsolicited e-mail), do not count
on it being quashed any time soon, for there is a struggle involving powerful
groups locked in intense debate over how e-mail should be used.
The
After years of deliberating and listening to the various lobbies, a federal
law known as the CAN-SPAM Act came into effect on Jan 1, 2004, and it was a
victory for the Direct Marketing Association, one of the act’s strong
supporters.
However, not everyone was happy with the CAN-SPAM Act.
The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail (Cauce) was
disappointed. “This law does not stop a single spam from being sent. It only
makes that spam slightly more truthful. It also gives a federal stamp of
approval for every legitimate marketer in the
“Congress has listened to the marketers and not to consumers, and we have no
faith that this law will significantly reduce the amount of spam that American
Internet users receive,” he added.
In the beginning ...
Let's take a look at how events developed, and the tenacity and resourcefulness
shown by all parties involved. The powerful Direct Marketing Association (DMA),
led by its president and CEO H. Robert Wientzen, had successfully lobbied
against antispam legislations proposed by Cauce in the past. DMA considers
e-mail a tool which members should be allowed to freely utilise in any manner
seen fit for their particular situation.
Unnecessary legislation will severely curtail their freedom and retard the
spirit of entrepreneurship, the DMA claimed. The industry, Wientzen argued, can
regulate itself and discipline errant members without the need for new
legislation.
However, the antispam groups showed evidence to the contrary.
One of DMA's strengths is its ability to assess correctly. It knew that
public feelings against spam were running high, with various groups pressuring
Congress for specific legislation. Since an antispam law was inevitable, the
politically-experienced DMA had to make sure it was friendly to direct marketing.
The proposed Burns/Wyden CAN-SPAM Act was it, and DMA became a tireless
promoter of the Act since 2002.
In keeping with its slogan “Helping direct and interactive marketers
succeed!” DMA was determined to keep e-mail as its tool in marketing and legitimise
what most others say is spam. It achieved this by influencing how people who
matter the most – members of Congress – should see spam.
Interpretations
Here's where the problem lies: People have different definitions of spam.
Some see it as unsolicited electronic mail sent in bulk. Others believe it's
merely a matter of whether the message sent was solicited, regardless of the
bulk. Still others debate the importance of whether the message was commercial
in nature.
Cauce defines it as “unsolicited commercial e-mail” (UCE), which it believes
is the biggest and most pressing problem and the target of its focus.
None of the common definitions were advantageous to DMA. So it did something
totally unexpected which caught the anti-spam groups by surprise: It created
its own definition. It argued that the word was still new, and nobody has the
absolute right to define it without input from others. And DMA was never
consulted on this.
It then took the opportunity in its appointment as the US Government's
authority to consult Congress on the proposed Bill by making content the focus
in defining spam. “Unsolicited” is of secondary consideration, “commercial”
does not matter while “bulk” is of no significance.
Congress was sold on this, and the antispam groups were outflanked due to
their inability to play the political game. But DMA was aware of
dissatisfaction among members of the public and the media of how useful the
watered-down bill would be.
In August 2003, it attempted a bold public relations stunt to imprint what
“spammers” should really mean, plus DMA's seriousness to deal with them if the
bill was passed and became law. And they are not the people who unleash
billions of unsolicited messages containing sales pitches daily, as everyone
else had previously labelled.
In a tough-talking report through MarketingToday.com, Wientzen
announced that DMA proposed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) “an
innovative and groundbreaking industry/law enforcement cooperative effort to
identify and prosecute spammers.”
Operation Slam Spam, he said, was “to identify, prosecute, and lock up the
bad actors who threaten to wholly undermine e-mail as a viable communications
medium.”
“Our message to spammers is: If you're lying to consumers, not honouring
consumers' requests, trying to swindle consumers, and ruin the Internet economy
– the end is near. Spammers are taking the Internet on a joyride, and we are
going to work hard to put a stop to it,” said Wientzen.
He said this breed called “spammers” were people who pitched everything from
fraudulent Nigerian money-laundering schemes to organ enlargement pills.
The MarketingToday.com report ended with a statement on how important
and valuable e-mail marketing has become. It said an unquoted survey found that
11 million Americans, representing 9% of e-mail users, have made at least one
purchase of similar goods and services in response to unsolicited e-mail
advertisements.
Profitable tool
So these are the people who have created a revenue stream for spammers. Making
a sale encourages them to send out even more spam – and making life a misery
for the rest of us! This is the root of the spam problem; of why marketers want
to control e-mail. Will it still be coveted if it ceases to be a profitable
marketing tool?
This wasteful method will continue since it is not illegal to send messages
in bulk. The senders must not make use of open proxies or any form of resource
misappropriation or use false headers.
Professional marketers Phoenix Avatar LLC made this mistake, and arrest
warrants were issued in April last year. Then there was the recent conviction
of Jeremy Jaynes, also known as “Gaven Stubberfield,” the first criminal spam
trial in the
The trial provided an astonishing disclosure of how a prolific spammer
operates. Jaynes was efficient and he utilised the high-bandwidth connections
available with just minimal assistance. Spamhaus.org ranked “Gaven
Stubberfield” at No 8 just before his arrest. Millions of messages were pumped
out daily, sapping resources all the way through. Almost all were certain to
end in wastage and futility, with the cost borne by others.
But that was not a problem for he needed just a few good ones to make a tidy
sum. Jaynes and everyone else whose “Internet direct marketing” are of this
model are simply vicious rogues. It is especially so when the victims were
never voluntary recipients – and it doesn't matter what they sell or the
legality of the routing. They didn't give a thought about the anger and dismay
of others on the receiving end, of people who depend on their e-mail accounts
to make a living.
So it brings satisfaction when such a prolific spammer is tracked down and
punished. It boosts morale too and brings a bit of optimism that maybe the
situation isn't all gloom and doom after all. But more are still around, and
now they're legal too. Good money can be made from people still willing to deal
with unsolicited and unknown peddlers.
That means we continue with the preventive measures and keep our distance.
It should minimise the aggravation that perpetuates when the enemy within
invites locusts to descend.
Places to go
Why am I getting all this spam? www.cdt.org/speech/spam/030319spamreport.shtml
– A report from the Centre for Democracy & Technology on how our address is
harvested plus tips on how to avoid spam.
The Spam Definition and Legalisation Game - www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=9
DMA guide to adhere to the CAN-SPAM Act - www.the-dma.org/antispam/E-mail_Chart.pdf
Spammer Arrests herald FTC Crackdown on Illegal Spamming - www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=152
Testimony of an expert witness in Jeremy Jaynes trial - www.taugh.com/weblog/leesburg.html