[SpamCop-List] Re: [media] "FTC says federal spam law has worked"

[Mike Easter]

Mike Easter wrote:

> The article in question is here:
>
http://news.com.com/FTC+says+federal+spam+law+has+worked/2100-1028_3-6003071.html

The article tells the story that there was an ftc report and something
of what the report sed, and the article also points out that significant
statements in the ftc report are patently 'false' - by which false I
mean where you make a statement and back it up with documentation, but
the 'statement' or fact doesn't tell the truth that it was meant to.

> The something else that said is a press release based on this
> publication  http://www.ftc.gov/reports/canspam05/051220canspamrpt.pdf
> and which was delivered to congress previously.

This report is 118 pages if you include the 7 appendices, which are
useful content.

One little example of a 'statement' or factoid from the report, which
the cnet article fleshed out a little bit was the story of how much spam
has 'decreased' -- that is that "the number of spam messages is leveling
off or even declining"

The report documents some old stats from MX Logic which say spam went
from 77% of the its mail analysis to 68%.  But in reality the actual
*number* of spams even according to mxlogic has /increased/ [that is,
the percentage is lower but the number is more], and technical methods
decreased the number getting to the inboxes, not the actual spamload to
the provider.

And the cnet article points out that Cloudmark reported a 62 percent
*increase* in the number of spam messages in the past year, with a
concomitant increased cost in the logistics for handling that problem.

> So, if we were going to discuss it here, the first thing 'we' the
> discussants would have to do would be to read both articles and
> discuss what the articles say, not what the article title sez.

One of the things which is quite striking when you begin to read the
report about the effect of the canspam law as an 'anti-' -- is the
realization that we anti-s are not on the same page with the FTC in very
very many ways.

The canspam act is a DMA act which legitimizes spam which is optout and
compliant.

We anti-s don't believe we should be opting out, so it seems kinda crazy
that the spammers are being 'forced' to perform according to the FTCs
optout rules which we anti- recipients aren't 'complying' with.

There's something wrong with that picture.

-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin