Legalising Spam: Daily Telegraph just won't listen

I WAS checking my mail server logs this morning and I found yet another attempt by the Daily Telegraph's pet "marketing company" Email Vision to spam me.

You would have thought that after refusing delivery of at least 10 mails from them in the last six months and then complaining directly to telegraph.co.uk's editorial staff about employing such an apparently unethical company to send mails for them that they might have got the message that I didn't want their junk in my mail box.

But at least I'm in the UK, as even our toothless and pointless anti-Spam legislation doesn't legitimise this kind of spam in the way that the new US anti-spam laws will.

The problem is that the email "marketeers" (aka the Direct Marketing Association or DMA) have persuaded the US lawmakers that there are two kinds of spam.

Firstly there's "bad" spam. This is the pr0n/viagra/419/little remote controlled cars that you run from your phone spam all sent with deceptive headers via open relays scattered all other the world and with unsubscribe links you wouldn't even dream of clicking on. This spam is evil and must be STAMPED OUT IMMEDIATELY.

But then there's the "good" spam. Spam from companies you've heard of, advertising products you might someday want ( bolder pledge notwithstanding), sent from respectable mail servers, with unsubscribe links that might actually work (given six moths and a following wind). This of course isn't spam, it's "marketing". The fact that you never asked for this stuff, the fact that it's costing YOU money to receive and read, the fact that it's threatening to overwhelm your inbox isn't the point.
As someone put it on the news.admin.net-abuse.email newsgroup
"The DMA's greatest triumph was in redefining spam to 'that thing the chickenboners, porn-peddlers and deposed Nigerian dictators do.'"

Under the new proposed CAN-SPAM act (shouldn't that be YOU-CAN-SPAM act ?), expected to be signed into law on January the first, this so called "mainslease" will be legitimised, and if you think that'll actually help reduce the amount of spam you receive I've got some great real estate down in Florida for you to buy.

If you're a spammer, all you have to do is not advertise anything illegal in your spam, not use deceptive headers (that'll be quite a wrench for some long-time spammers) and include a "working" opt-out link and you'll be able to spew as much crap into America's inbox as you want.

Even better the spammers get to define what a "working" opt-out link means. Want to require your recipients to send you their unsubscribe messages on a gold-plated rhino, go for it... The law says that's fine just as long as if you do get one you honour it (doesn't seem to be anything stopping you from adding that email address to a different spam lists though).

In short this law is bad, in fact worse than bad, it's terrible, despicable, worthless and stinks of back handers-room deals with the DMA, but right now you're stuck with it.

So what can you do?

Firstly let your congress critter what they've done. Explain to them (in words of one syllables is best) exactly why this law is likely to make email unusable and point out that if they don't actually want to do something about it now, you can always get someone in next year who will.

In the meantime this act will become law so talk to your ISP/Mail admin and beg them to introduce effective anti-spam protection (if they don't already) and if they won't, go somewhere else that will, cos otherwise I fear you wont like what happens to your mail box from January the 1st.

Now if you'll excuse me I have a LART to write to my friends at the Daily Telegraph...µ