On April 12, 1994, a pair of attorneys in Arizona launched a homemade marketing software program that forever changed the Internet.
Hoping to drum up some business, Laurence Canter dashed off a Perl script that flooded online message boards with an advertisement pitching the legal services of Canter & Siegel, the law firm he ran with his then wife, Martha Siegel.
News.context
What's new: The Internet phenomenon known as spam marks its 10th anniversary. Intrusive online marketing is now an epidemic of massive proportions.
Bottom line: Righteous anger over the problem has increasingly been replaced by resignation. Despite tireless efforts to rein in junk e-mailers, including federal legislation, spam is big business.
The response was immediate and harsh, offering one of the loudest signals up to that point that unchecked marketing would not be tolerated in the new medium. Thousands of recipients registered their displeasure, and a new label for the burgeoning business of unsolicited mass Internet advertising was coined.
"Send coconuts and cans of Spam to Cantor & Co.," one outraged Usenet reader wrote amid the uproar that followed the Canter & Siegel message. "(Be sure to drop the can of Spam on its seam first.)"
Ten years after Web surfers began using the spam label to describe intrusive online marketing, junk e-mail has ballooned into an epidemic of massive proportions. But righteous anger over the problem has increasingly been replaced by resignation. With no effective solution in sight, many people now ruefully wonder whether the "Internet era" might more accurately be dubbed the "age of spam."
Your take Offer your opinion
Can the spam problem be solved?
Will online marketers ever lose
their taste for junk e-mail?
Despite unceasing efforts to rein in junk e-mailers--including federal legislation aimed at limiting the practice enacted in the United States--spam is big business. Some of its most shameless purveyors have raked in fortunes, while the rest of the world has paid in frustration, wasted time and stolen network resources that one recent study, by analyst firm Basex, valued at $20 billion per year.
Even Canter later claimed that his pitch was a success, bringing in between $100,000 and $200,000 in business.
Expensive annoyance
Internet giants such as America Online, Yahoo and Microsoft have poured technical resources into solving the problem, and legislators have moved to limit the worst practices. Last week, prosecutors successfully won a guilty verdict in a criminal case that saw the so-called Buffalo Spammer sentenced with up to seven years in prison for alleged identity theft and forgery that enabled him to send more than 800 million e-mail messages through Internet service provider EarthLink.
Yet the spam problem has only seemed to grow worse each year, as spammers adopt potent new tactics that make Canter's Perl script seem quaint by comparison. In a worst-case scenario, spammers may now work hand-in-hand with overseas organized crime groups, employing Trojan-horse attacks that can turn PCs into "zombie" machines that spew out spam under the noses of their unwitting owners. Infected machines can then be rented or sold to underhanded marketers looking for a cheap way to send out millions of messages in hopes of garnering a handful of sales leads.
Astonishingly, some people actually respond to spam messages, keeping the whole system afloat. Even outrageous (and by now, well-known) frauds such as the Nigerian e-mail scam have duped some victims. Since spam is so cheap--even free to the sender under some methods--criminals are more than willing to annoy hundreds of millions of people for the chance of cashing in on one mark.
The problem is so bad that spam now threatens the very future of e-mail. Once billed as the Net's killer app for both business and consumers, e-mail senders are now largely aware that their messages may not be seen or read, because they may have been accidentally swept aside by antispam measures. For really important matters, use the phone, some now advise.
To be sure, spam isn't the only thing that's changed since Canter first launched his message board script. The Internet itself is more overtly commercial than it once was, having been transferred from government to mostly private control. Once policed primarily by social pressure and rules of etiquette, e-mail marketing is now ruled by myriad state and federal laws, and overburdened companies and consumers now have their pick of dozens of software products claiming the ability to manage the deluge.
From anger to resignation Attitudes about spam, too, appear to have changed under the constant onslaught. While nearly everyone would seem to agree the Internet would be better off without it, spam has now become so pervasive that some people now seem to take it as a matter of course, treating it as an ineradicable, if unwelcome, feature of the landscape.
It was not always that way, though. People who have used e-mail long enough remember their first spam--and their anger--vividly.
"I was furious and disgusted," recalled California state Sen. Debra Bowen, who started using e-mail in 1989 and sponsored her first antispam bill in 1998. "It felt like a real violation."
Bowen recalled that, 10 years ago, the Internet was still considered an essentially noncommercial zone, populated mostly by academics and with relatively few choices in services. "All you can eat," unlimited-access plans common today were not widely available, and connection speeds were slow as molasses by comparison with current standards, making bandwidth precious.
"Spam was not just annoying; it was expensive," Bowen said.
Now, people with unlimited Internet access and broadband connections complain that they could use all their online time in just dispensing spam, most of which isn't pretty.
The advertising vehicle that proved so effective for Canter & Siegel's legal services is equally effective for hawking pornography, sexual aids, pyramid schemes, stock tips, credit repair--with unlikely return addresses pointing to the likes of Prince Peter Kabila, Clattering J. Spectroscopy, Sebastian Goins, Mrs. Floxy Page, and abcss016@1588.adsldns.org.
And that's just from yesterday's batch.
Canning spam
Spam's pruriency has incited legislators--claiming the mantle of decency--to throw the book at spam purveyors. The first national spam law reflects that mission in its name: Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (Can-Spam).
President George W. Bush's signing of that law in December, which capped years of legislative maneuvering, satisfied next to nobody. Despite a flurry of lawsuits by major e-mail providers, it has yet to curb the flow of spam.
Postini, a Redwood City, Calif.-based e-mail management provider, earlier this month said spam made up about 77 percent of the nearly 5 billion e-mails that coursed through its system in March. That's up a point from February.
"If this is the test of our ability to deal through legislation with the problems of the Internet age, Congress gets an F," said David Kramer, a partner with Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, who has criticized Can-Spam for legitimizing unsolicited commercial e-mail. "It's very disheartening to see that 10 years after this problem arose, not only have we done nothing on a legislative front to deal with it, but we've actually made it worse."
Given the international reach of spam and the creativity of spammers, some experts believe that technology will have to play a role in bringing it under control. Proposals have been floated that would revamp the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) e-mail standard to better track the real identity of e-mail senders, among other things. Others have suggested slapping fees on the delivery of e-mail to make spam uneconomical for the sender.
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates recently opined that new countermeasures will eventually be found to solve the problem once and for all. But little consensus has emerged to date over what might work.
'Spam spam spam' Analysts said the Canter & Siegel anniversary comes with some caveats--there was spam before April 12, 1994, even if it wasn't called that yet.
The term spam itself originally came into being in 1937, when Kenneth Daigneau won $100 for coming up with the name to replace Hormel Foods' canned meat-based product, then known as Hormel Spiced Ham.
Thirty-three years later, the British comedy group Monty Python got its hands on Spam. In an episode of the troupe's Flying Circus television show that aired Dec. 15, 1970, Monty Python performed a sketch in which a waitress at the Green Midget Cafe recites dish after dish featuring copious amounts of the canned meat, accompanied by a Wagnerian chorus of Vikings who drown out the restaurant patron, who protests that she does not want any.
On May 3, 1978, a Digital Equipment marketer named Gary Thuerk sent over the ARPAnet--the Internet's academic, military and strictly noncommercial predecessor--an unsolicited e-mail that advertised the company's support of the ARPAnet protocol in its products.
But it wasn't until the 1980s that users of the multiuser dungeon, or MUD, network environment made reference to the Monty Python skit by using the term spam to describe the posting of overly large text files.
According to Jonathan Spira, chief executive of Basex, it wasn't until 10 years ago that the Canter & Siegel e-mail inspired the use of "spam" to describe unsolicited commercial messages.
Hormel says that despite early moves in defense of its trademark, it has given spam up to the e-mail vernacular.
And while the company claims to have a sense of humor about its much-pilloried product, the 2-year-old, 16,000 square foot Spam Museum has no reference to junk e-mail.
"We don't really track that history," Hormel representative Julie Craven said. "The kind of spam we like to talk about the most is the kind you eat."
That's not funny
Spam critics say the problem is no laughing matter, costing the economy in many ways. One is the time it takes people to weed through in-boxes for spam and spam-boxes for legitimate e-mail; filters notoriously mix up spam and nonspam. Then there is the cost of data that goes missing with the so-called false positives.
Second is that managing spam cuts into a company's IT budget, sucking up time and money that would have otherwise gone into product development or systems upgrades.
Then, there are the tight restrictions marketing departments have to observe in order to avoid the dreaded "spammer" label. That inhibition is particularly acute for vendors of certain pharmaceuticals that are mainstays of the spam diet.
"What if the company that produces Viagra ever wanted to send out an e-mail?" Spira mused. "The value of that mark in that context has been utterly diminished."
With Viagra losing its trademark potency, corporations bleeding information technology time and money, and individuals and businesses alike losing patience and in some cases giving up, many are pinning their hopes on technology to solve the problem.
So far, spam has behaved like a wily retrovirus, adapting to whatever obstacles are thrown its way.
When companies began to employ filters that aim to identify and remove junk e-mail by examining the subject line or content of the message for suspicious words, spammers started misspelling them. When e-mail providers like Microsoft's Hotmail and Yahoo Mail started instituting visual verification tests to prevent computer-generated registration of accounts, spammers started using cheap African labor to pass those tests and open new accounts. Sophisticated spammers even use random word generators to try to increase the number of false positives so that e-mail users and providers have to turn off their filters.
Spam evolves on a three-month cycle, according to Burton Group analyst Fred Cohen.
Cohen--who says he's personally received as many as 60,000 spams in a 24-hour period--stresses that virtually no spam filter or deterrent can prevent the practice from being inherently profitable.
"You can send millions of spam e-mails a day for about a dollar," Cohen said. "That means if one in a million people buy something from you, you break even. Lists of validated bulk postal mail can cost a couple of cents to a dollar per person, and you can grab physical addresses of decision makers with buying power in Fortune 500 companies. But in spam, you don't have to be that selective. You could just say everyone in the United States."
Yes! Yes! & Yes! all we need to do is to make them pay for sending it!nothing new right? just remember! they do not use mobile phone SMS because they have to pay! If we are really serious about resolving the problem its easy. complains from all people using internet? No, No, people, in the begining may complain a little, but here is the deal: pay something for sending email and the spam go away! Remember, the most effective way to punish human beeing, in this situation, is to take they income!
There is no way to be absolutely sure that the email being sent, is actually being sent by the person. How would you like to get your phone/cable/adsl bill one day and see 10000 new emails sent? Even at a penny for each email, that just cost you 100 dollars.
I do however like the idea, its just that its impossible to implement legitimately.
there are patial solutions to the problem but these solutions might make the use of email inconviniant for some users making email secondary to regular mail
Thanks for sharing this interesting story of the origins of spam. Just can't bring myself to sing "happy birthday"...
My most sincere congratulations to Paul Festa and Evan Hansen. What a great article! Good writing. Very complete. You guys didn't miss a thing. There is even a mention of the Nigerian scam. (by the way, on this particular subject I highly recommend www.quatloos.com)
But really: Have you guys considered writing a book on this subject? You have plenty of material you could develop a bit further and easily complete a good book.
I am the owner of a web designing company and I would like to tell everyone the same thing I tell all my clients when they ask. How do I avoid spam? I receive MAYBE 10 spam emails a week. The trick is multiple email accounts and watching where you submit your email address.
I have my business email address which NEVER receives any spam. I have a hotmail address, my local ISP email and another free email. I only sign up to online services with my local ISP email. I only submit my hotline email to forums, chats, and discussions. The last email is for questionable websites which I don't trust. If a website goes under, liquidators will buyout their client list and databases. Those lists get sold to the semi-legal spamming services. This is a process that has been around since "email advertising" companies started.
Forums are the number one resource for spammers to get free email addresses. If your email is posted anywhere on a website I guaranatee an automated program will scan the website and scoop up your address along with hundreds of other addresses in seconds.
My business email address never receives spam since my business's website address is not in a database. If you have a hotmail address, the entire email network is a write-off to spam. There are generators that will send emails to every single possible email name @hotmail.com. There is nothing you've done wrong except use their service. There is no avoiding the problem. I use my hotmail address for places where I don't expect any emails that require my attention.
So to sum everything up, the best method of avoiding spam is to start fresh. Use 3 or 4 email addresses. Never post your email address on a website. If this is a company website, use a contact forms. An alternative is to use email aliases through your server and simply change the alias name every few months. Your webmaster will be able to set this up for you. One method of preventing the spread of spam (and especially for Windows users), do NOT use the address book of your email program. Store your information in a more secure location, use a textfile, a database program, excel spreadsheet, anything that cannot be accessed through your email program. They are the number 1 exploit for the attacks of viruses and continuing the spread of spam. Another little trick is with the browser itself. Never fill in the user information where it will ask for your email address, name, location, etc. This information is not necessary and incredibly easy to access through a website as it is provided freely (originally intended for logging and tracking purposes).
With no targets and the right precautions you will stop the spammers in their tracks and divert all spam to an email account that you don't even need to check. I hope this helps the many concerned and confused internet users.
Ultimately spam has to direct you somewhere. It's there to sell a product. Surely the owner of the product being sold, should be the one held responsible for the spam.
If the spam sends you to a web site, someone owns that website. If the spam directs you to call a phone number, someone owns that number.
There needs to be some convenient method of having these sites shut down and their owners charged. Perhaps the bodies that maintain domain registrations need to have a complaints system where unsolicited advertising can be directed. And phone companies as well.
Also, the current opt out methods only allow you to opt out of spam for a single product. Opt Out pages should be required to publish the source that provided the e-mail so people can direct their complaints against the groups that harvest addresses in the first place.
Proper legislation to punish harvesting of e-mail addresses would also help.
Stopping spam - but not through expensive technology
Technical solutions discussed in the US Congress and elsewhere always address spam AFTER it has gotten onto the wire. Blocking spam after it has been sent is like making people stand at their home mailbox as if each letter sent to them has been sent COD and paying the postal carrier before you can get the letter to even decide if you want that piece of mail or not -- that means YOU are paying and having to stand there forever opening and closing the letters - and by opening letters or just discarding them it automatically lets the sender know you exist and you will be sent more since they know that mail was either discarded or opened (they did not bounce when sent.)
Attack spammer at THEIR revenue end -- not end users.
Technological solutions to block the source is laughable -- you never will block spam sources since people can tap into an open mail relay or set up an valid e-mail system and make it open to anyone anywhere in the world.
however EVERY spam message MUST have ONE of THREE possible items in it in order for them to sell their product:
A postal address A Phone number A URL to click on
Every solution EVERY discussed ignores this simple fact.
Instead of blocking delivery take the other approach -- yank the methods the spammer must use to make a sell - block the advertiser from ever getting a response.
What is needed is a law -- and very fast methods to react to spam -- that makes the spammer lose access to customers immediately (or at most in 24 hours after the initial spam has been sent) by shutting off ability for anyone to get to them -- block their phone numbers, web addresses and mailing addresses. You can have the post office put a block on delivery of all paper mail delivery to that address and have it seized, the Telcos (at least in the US) to suspend the phone number -- or block all calls originating in the USA trying to dial to it -- and have the Net/ISP provider block the IP/URL address and disable the account: all on the same day of detecting spam (again, we cannot control access in other countries but we can block all access to it FROM the USA thereby not violate treaties or interfere with access to those places from elsewhere. We can block any traffic passing THROUGH any device IN the USA (or any company doing business in the US) which is allowed under international law. Other counties could easily enact similar laws.
In the US have a simple federal law to set up a central SPAM Detection Agency (spam Duh!) within the Federal Trade Commission or Commerce (the law has to be written forcing them, on their own they will do nothing), funded by ISPs (it is in their interest to stop spam since they have to put in hardware and software to handle the volume) with more money provided by fines on those companies / people sending out the spam. Have a hefty $50,000 fine per occurrence levied against senders each time they send out spam set. This applies to the spammers and people who benefit from the spammers: do any or all actions of permanently barring them from obtaining any 800 number (or any phone number), web address, net accounts in the US after the third time -- by them or any known or suspected associates. Have them also post a $100,000 bond before they can get any type of net account if a fine is ever levied.
Note: Make all this an administrative action: like that of a traffic ticket -- guilty until proven innocent, Do not use a formal grand jury or legal charges environment. Then these people MUST come out in the open and challenge the administrative ruling in administrative court.
Put the burden on THEM to prove that they have not sent out the spam or contracted with a spammer to get their fine back. This is what happens in traffic court.
And have all fines indexed to inflation. This will solve 95% of it.
This central FTC group (or whomever it is assigned to in other countries), after they detect a mass mailing of spam, would have INSTANT authority to contact the Telco who owns the number, The Post Office to seize mail and the ISP/Internic to shut that site immediately. (And if ISPs will not shut down abusers in their domains / web site then the whole ISP is cut off from access to the Internet at the DNS root server(s)).
Legitimate business will not have to worry about this since they ALWAYS provide valid return mail addresses, ways to opt out of mailings (and honor it), valid postal addresses, customer service phone numbers etcetera. and do not resale people's e-mail who are on their mailing list (unless noted in their valid privacy statements.) Spammers never do these things.
This attacks spammer at THEIR end -- not end users.
If their firm or site can NEVER be contacted then they will go out of business real fast. Only then will these people stop sending billions of spam messages a year.
As I replied to the other person on this thread....
Spoofing.
While I admit your method for stopping spam mail is amongst the best I've seen, not to mention the most proactive. It still suffers from the malcontents who cause major problems in the world.
Email spoofing is a major problem right now. Its so bad that every day I recieve at least one email sent from "myself" that contains either a rather powerful/prominent virus (ie netsky, bagle, the list goes on) or some kind of stupid ad. If your method of stopping spam were to be implemented, it would take less then 1 hour for almost every single major business to be taken down from the internet in the largest 'legal' DoS ever accomplished. For instance, I could program a computer to send out 1 billion spam emails with Sun microsystems information on it (I use myelf as an example to show just how easy it is to do it, not because I would actually do something like that). According to your method, they would be completely cut off from the legitimate business they do (phone, email, internet) within minutes, and suddenly be slapped with a multi thousand dollar fine for something I did.
Its because of that, that spam has to be, and I mean HAS TO BE, dealt with in a reactive manner. At least for now. The problem with the internet is that it is anonymous. Me personally, I've always thought that once IPv6 comes out, every single human being on earth should be issued a personal IP address sort of like everyone is issued a birth certificate. Then when they want to access the internet, its always them who gets the bill (this of course would require some kind of security, otherwise spoofing comes into play again).
Anyway, I really would like to agree with your statement, but its just too dangerous at this time.
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
Righteous anger over the problem has increasingly been replaced by resignation. Despite tireless efforts to rein in junk e-mailers, including federal legislation, spam is big business. 
all we need to do is to make them pay for sending it!nothing new right?
just remember! they do not use mobile phone SMS because they have to pay!
If we are really serious about resolving the problem its easy.
complains from all people using internet?
No, No, people, in the begining may complain a little, but here is the deal:
pay something for sending email and the spam go away!
Remember, the most effective way to punish human beeing, in this situation, is to take they income!
There is no way to be absolutely sure that the email being sent, is actually being sent by the person. How would you like to get your phone/cable/adsl bill one day and see 10000 new emails sent? Even at a penny for each email, that just cost you 100 dollars.
I do however like the idea, its just that its impossible to implement legitimately.
My most sincere congratulations to Paul Festa and Evan Hansen. What a great article! Good writing. Very complete. You guys didn't miss a thing. There is even a mention of the Nigerian scam. (by the way, on this particular subject I highly recommend www.quatloos.com)
But really: Have you guys considered writing a book on this subject? You have plenty of material you could develop a bit further and easily complete a good book.
My best wishes,
tell everyone the same thing I tell all my clients when they ask.
How do I avoid spam? I receive MAYBE 10 spam emails a week.
The trick is multiple email accounts and watching where you
submit your email address.
I have my business email address which NEVER receives any
spam. I have a hotmail address, my local ISP email and another
free email. I only sign up to online services with my local ISP
email. I only submit my hotline email to forums, chats, and
discussions. The last email is for questionable websites which I
don't trust. If a website goes under, liquidators will buyout their
client list and databases. Those lists get sold to the semi-legal
spamming services. This is a process that has been around since
"email advertising" companies started.
Forums are the number one resource for spammers to get free
email addresses. If your email is posted anywhere on a website I
guaranatee an automated program will scan the website and
scoop up your address along with hundreds of other addresses
in seconds.
My business email address never receives spam since my
business's website address is not in a database. If you have a
hotmail address, the entire email network is a write-off to spam.
There are generators that will send emails to every single
possible email name @hotmail.com. There is nothing you've
done wrong except use their service. There is no avoiding the
problem. I use my hotmail address for places where I don't
expect any emails that require my attention.
So to sum everything up, the best method of avoiding spam is to
start fresh. Use 3 or 4 email addresses. Never post your email
address on a website. If this is a company website, use a contact
forms. An alternative is to use email aliases through your server
and simply change the alias name every few months. Your
webmaster will be able to set this up for you. One method of
preventing the spread of spam (and especially for Windows
users), do NOT use the address book of your email program.
Store your information in a more secure location, use a textfile,
a database program, excel spreadsheet, anything that cannot be
accessed through your email program. They are the number 1
exploit for the attacks of viruses and continuing the spread of
spam. Another little trick is with the browser itself. Never fill in
the user information where it will ask for your email address,
name, location, etc. This information is not necessary and
incredibly easy to access through a website as it is provided
freely (originally intended for logging and tracking purposes).
With no targets and the right precautions you will stop the
spammers in their tracks and divert all spam to an email account
that you don't even need to check. I hope this helps the many
concerned and confused internet users.
If the spam sends you to a web site, someone owns that website. If the spam directs you to call a phone number, someone owns that number.
There needs to be some convenient method of having these sites shut down and their owners charged. Perhaps the bodies that maintain domain registrations need to have a complaints system where unsolicited advertising can be directed. And phone companies as well.
Also, the current opt out methods only allow you to opt out of spam for a single product. Opt Out pages should be required to publish the source that provided the e-mail so people can direct their complaints against the groups that harvest addresses in the first place.
Proper legislation to punish harvesting of e-mail addresses would also help.
Attack spammer at THEIR revenue end -- not end users.
Technological solutions to block the source is laughable -- you never will block spam sources since people can tap into an open mail relay or set up an valid e-mail system and make it open to anyone anywhere in the world.
however EVERY spam message MUST have ONE of THREE possible items in it in order for them to sell their product:
A postal address
A Phone number
A URL to click on
Every solution EVERY discussed ignores this simple fact.
Instead of blocking delivery take the other approach -- yank the methods the spammer must use to make a sell - block the advertiser from ever getting a response.
What is needed is a law -- and very fast methods to react to spam -- that makes the spammer lose access to customers immediately (or at most in 24 hours after the initial spam has been sent) by shutting off ability for anyone to get to them -- block their phone numbers, web addresses and mailing addresses. You can have the post office put a block on delivery of all paper mail delivery to that address and have it seized, the Telcos (at least in the US) to suspend the phone number -- or block all calls originating in the USA trying to dial to it -- and have the Net/ISP provider block the IP/URL address and disable the account: all on the same day of detecting spam (again, we cannot control access in other countries but we can block all access to it FROM the USA thereby not violate treaties or interfere with access to those places from elsewhere. We can block any traffic passing THROUGH any device IN the USA (or any company doing business in the US) which is allowed under international law. Other counties could easily enact similar laws.
In the US have a simple federal law to set up a central SPAM Detection Agency (spam Duh!) within the Federal Trade Commission or Commerce (the law has to be written forcing them, on their own they will do nothing), funded by ISPs (it is in their interest to stop spam since they have to put in hardware and software to handle the volume) with more money provided by fines on those companies / people sending out the spam. Have a hefty $50,000 fine per occurrence levied against senders each time they send out spam set. This applies to the spammers and people who benefit from the spammers: do any or all actions of permanently barring them from obtaining any 800 number (or any phone number), web address, net accounts in the US after the third time -- by them or any known or suspected associates. Have them also post a $100,000 bond before they can get any type of net account if a fine is ever levied.
Note: Make all this an administrative action: like that of a traffic ticket -- guilty until proven innocent, Do not use a formal grand jury or legal charges environment. Then these people MUST come out in the open and challenge the administrative ruling in administrative court.
Put the burden on THEM to prove that they have not sent out the spam or contracted with a spammer to get their fine back. This is what happens in traffic court.
And have all fines indexed to inflation. This will solve 95% of it.
This central FTC group (or whomever it is assigned to in other countries), after they detect a mass mailing of spam, would have INSTANT authority to contact the Telco who owns the number, The Post Office to seize mail and the ISP/Internic to shut that site immediately. (And if ISPs will not shut down abusers in their domains / web site then the whole ISP is cut off from access to the Internet at the DNS root server(s)).
Legitimate business will not have to worry about this since they ALWAYS provide valid return mail addresses, ways to opt out of mailings (and honor it), valid postal addresses, customer service phone numbers etcetera. and do not resale people's e-mail who are on their mailing list (unless noted in their valid privacy statements.) Spammers never do these things.
This attacks spammer at THEIR end -- not end users.
If their firm or site can NEVER be contacted then they will go out of business real fast. Only then will these people stop sending billions of spam messages a year.
www.taphilo.com
Tom Philo
tom @ taphilo . com
Spoofing.
While I admit your method for stopping spam mail is amongst the best I've seen, not to mention the most proactive. It still suffers from the malcontents who cause major problems in the world.
Email spoofing is a major problem right now. Its so bad that every day I recieve at least one email sent from "myself" that contains either a rather powerful/prominent virus (ie netsky, bagle, the list goes on) or some kind of stupid ad. If your method of stopping spam were to be implemented, it would take less then 1 hour for almost every single major business to be taken down from the internet in the largest 'legal' DoS ever accomplished. For instance, I could program a computer to send out 1 billion spam emails with Sun microsystems information on it (I use myelf as an example to show just how easy it is to do it, not because I would actually do something like that). According to your method, they would be completely cut off from the legitimate business they do (phone, email, internet) within minutes, and suddenly be slapped with a multi thousand dollar fine for something I did.
Its because of that, that spam has to be, and I mean HAS TO BE, dealt with in a reactive manner. At least for now. The problem with the internet is that it is anonymous. Me personally, I've always thought that once IPv6 comes out, every single human being on earth should be issued a personal IP address sort of like everyone is issued a birth certificate. Then when they want to access the internet, its always them who gets the bill (this of course would require some kind of security, otherwise spoofing comes into play again).
Anyway, I really would like to agree with your statement, but its just too dangerous at this time.
Kyle King