Dylan Greene dot com

Note 1: While Bush made it illegal for any state to pass Spam-related laws, Virginia's tough anti-spam law was unaffected because it went into effect before CAN-SPAM and classifies email in the same jurisdiction as postal mail. Virginia is currently prosecuting somebody for "mail fraud" because the return email address name and email were forged.

Note 2: The follow laws were introduced by members of the 108th Congress and were denied by Bush and the Republican-lead Congress:

- Anti-Spam Act of 2003 (H.R. 2515) (Wilson [R])

- Ban on Deceptive Unsolicited Bulk Electronic Mail Act of 2003 (S. 1052) (Bill Nelson [D])

- Computer Owners' Bill of Rights (S. 563) (Dayton [D])

- Criminal Spam Act of 2003 (S. 1293) (Hatch [R])

- Reduction in Distribution of Spam Act of 2003 (H.R. 2214) (Burr [R])

- REDUCE Spam Act of 2003 (H.R. 1933) (Lofgren [D])

- Stop Pornography and Abusive Marketing Act (S. 1231) (Schumer [D])

- Wireless Telephone Spam Protection Act (H.R. 122) (Holt [D])

Dylan you have my vote. Spam sucks!

While I certainly agree with your views regarding spam and the inadequacy of the new law, I must respectfully disagree with you regarding the assignment of blame. I'm not a Bush apologist, but let's be clear. A president's failure to veto a piece of bad legislation overwhelmingly passed by both houses of Congress (the house vote was 392 to 5, the senate was 97 to 0) is not the same thing as authoring and voting for a piece of bad legislation. Consider blaming the authors:

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5126655.html

Or your own representative and senators.

Quote from blog: "Something that bugs me about the Bush Administration is how many illegal and unethical things they do, laws they pass, and business agreements they get away with, but have near zero opposition from Congress or mainstream press."

NOT TRUE. The mainstream press is rabidly anti-Bush. Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, NPR, The NY Times, The Wash. Post, the LA Times and many more "mainstream" papers will take a swipe at Bush at every opportunity. Illegal things? Examples, please.

I second this post as well I said the same thing on my blog when I first found out about CAN-SPAM and still think it's a load of crap.

The gentleman responsible for this original post is mistaken and uninformed.

The following statements are incorrect, and it goes to show that you shouldn't believe everything you read. I read the law myself and you should to before you accept everything that is displayed on the internet.

"The law does not specify how the Opt Out should work. It does not set fines for when it does not work. It even makes it legal to turn around sell the list of Opt-Out email address list to other spammers."

If a recipient makes a request using a mechanism provided pursuant to paragraph (3) not to receive some or any commercial electronic mail messages from such sender, then it is unlawful--

for the sender, or any other person who knows that the recipient has made such a request, to sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise transfer or release the electronic mail address of the recipient (after an opt-out request)...

(It does not make it legal to sell or even distribute the opt-out list, this gentleman is mistake and did not read the law over)

This law says that Spammers can add anybody they want to their lists. Popular methods include using cheap software that scans web pages, chat rooms, message boards, mailing lists, and any other source for valid-looking email address. CAN-SPAM makes doing this legal, even though this practice is considered trespassing and unlawful entry by those that host the web sites and chat rooms.

the electronic mail address of the recipient was obtained using an automated means from an Internet website or proprietary online service operated by another person, and such website or online service included, at the time the address was obtained, a notice stating that the operator of such website or online service will not give, sell, or otherwise transfer addresses maintained by such website or online service to any other party for the purposes of initiating, or enabling others to initiate, electronic mail messages

(The software is not cheap to begin with, its very expensive. Secondly, and it makes harvesting addresses illegal.

Read the law for you self at www.spamlaws.com. Dont accept this interpretation until you have read the law yourself.

This "anti SPAM law" is going to do nothing. What a waste of time.

Joe, have you read the law? You say what I wrote is incorrect, but don't give any quotes, just incorrect information:

"(The software is not cheap to begin with, its very expensive"

http://www.emailsmartz.com/asp/orderProduct.asp

$99.95 is very expensive? Maybe you just have a skewed view on things.

Actually sir, I did leave quotes. Note the "", that means that the following information is a quote (hence the quotation marks). The notes in the parenthesis (), are reference to disprove the original interpretation of the law using references in the actual law itself.

With regards to you comment about pricing. The average mailing program runs anywhere between $1,500 and $20,000 US dollars. Don't talk to me about pricing unless your involved in the industry. That is just for the mailer itself. The various hosting companies and other hardware run myself and my partner around $5,000-$6,000 a month.

Just because you found one company that sells a mailing program for a hundred bucks doesn't mean its effective. You can also place an add in a local paper for around $25, but if you do TV advertising its going to run you a little more than that (sarcasm). The mailing programs that allow us to be compliant with the new laws, and reach the end user were to be custom designed.

The question I have for you is, have you read the law? I thoroughly read through it because it concerns my industry. You seem to be making comments about it using 3rd parties as your basis. If you are getting your information from another source other than the law, I suggest you tell your "source" to revaluate their interpretation. If you have read the law, I suggest you re-read your letter and run it against the law, and you will see the errors in your comments.

You think that spam will end??? WRONG! I live in europe and i know that we will suffer more spam than Us citizens... this is bad but our goverments do nothing about it and that's even worse!

I don't think it will end. That wasn't my point.

You know whats really annoying, even more annoying than spam ???? Traffic! If you live in New York, or (God forbid) California than you know what I'm talking about.

It's time consuming, its frustrating, it uses a lot of unessassary resources. However, its how people get to work. Spam is how some people work. Not all that different. There needs to be regulations, I'll give you that, but stopping it altogether is like expecting people to stop using cars to get to work. Its a medium people use to obtain income.

Joe, don't know if you ever see this, but I'd like to discuss the harvesting issue. My reading is, that the nesting of paragraphs at that point in the bill makes harvesting illegal only when the rest of the email isn't lawful, e.g. bears no physical sender address etc.

i don't know if you'll ever read this, but ... havesting is an illegal means of obtaining addresses regardless. even if your direct sending to the addresses with valid to and from information with unmodified headers, the fact is that you can not buy email addresses or harvest them. if you already have them its a different story, but harvesting is out of the question.

it might be hard to prove but no one is going to take you to court for just doing that ... its usually a combination of multiple violations of the act. jcjoe26@hotmail.com if you want to talk more.

(quote) "The new law does not make spamming illegal but instead lists what spamers CAN do, hence the name."

Give me a break

CAN-SPAM stands for Controlling the Assault of Non-solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003

if you want to actually learn something about it, try reading it directly rather than going to gossip pages...

Here ya go...

http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877enrolled.pdf

#15 - Thanks for the link, as it confirms everything I wrote.

And you don't even need to be a law expert to know that the ammount of spam has only increased since Bush signed that law into effect.

you didn't even read it, did you....?

figures....

or are you just a poor reader and typically miss entire sections which render your original rant meaningless....?

such as:

(2) REQUIREMENTS.In carrying out this subsection, the

Sentencing Commission shall consider providing SENTENCING

ENHANCEMENTS [in other wods, it's unlawful] for

(A) those convicted under section 1037 of title 18,

United States Code, who

(i) obtained electronic mail addresses through

improper means, including

(I) harvesting electronic mail addresses of the

users of a website, proprietary service, or other

online public forum operated by another person,

without the authorization of such person; and

(II) randomly generating electronic mail

addresses by computer; or

(ii) knew that the commercial electronic mail messages

involved in the offense contained or advertised

an Internet domain for which the registrant of the

domain had provided false registration information;

and

S. 8778

(B) those convicted of other offenses, including offenses

involving fraud, identity theft, obscenity, child pornography,

and the sexual exploitation of children, if such

offenses involved the sending of large quantities of electronic

mail.

(c) SENSE OF CONGRESS.It is the sense of Congress that

(1) Spam has become the method of choice for those who

distribute pornography, perpetrate fraudulent schemes, and

introduce viruses, worms, and Trojan horses into personal and

business computer systems; and

(2) the Department of Justice should use all existing law

enforcement tools to investigate and prosecute those who send

bulk commercial e-mail to facilitate the commission of Federal

crimes, including the tools contained in chapters 47 and 63

of title 18, United States Code (relating to fraud and false

statements); chapter 71 of title 18, United States Code (relating

to obscenity); chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code

(relating to the sexual exploitation of children); and chapter

95 of title 18, United States Code (relating to racketeering),

as appropriate.

SEC. 5. OTHER PROTECTIONS FOR USERS OF COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC

MAIL.

(a) REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSMISSION OF MESSAGES.

(1) PROHIBITION OF FALSE OR MISLEADING TRANSMISSION

INFORMATION.It is unlawful for any person to initiate the

transmission, to a protected computer, of a commercial electronic

mail message, or a transactional or relationship message,

that contains, or is accompanied by, header information that

is materially false or materially misleading. For purposes of

this paragraph

(A) header information that is technically accurate but

includes an originating electronic mail address, domain

name, or Internet Protocol address the access to which

for purposes of initiating the message was obtained by

means of false or fraudulent pretenses or representations

shall be considered materially misleading;

(B) a from line (the line identifying or purporting

to identify a person initiating the message) that accurately

identifies any person who initiated the message shall not

be considered materially false or materially misleading;

and

(C) header information shall be considered materially

misleading if it fails to identify accurately a protected

computer used to initiate the message because the person

initiating the message knowingly uses another protected

computer to relay or retransmit the message for purposes

of disguising its origin.

(2) PROHIBITION OF DECEPTIVE SUBJECT HEADINGS.It is

unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission to a protected

computer of a commercial electronic mail message if

such person has actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied

on the basis of objective circumstances, that a subject heading

of the message would be likely to mislead a recipient, acting

reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact

S. 8779

regarding the contents or subject matter of the message (consistent

with the criteria used in enforcement of section 5 of

the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45)).

(3) INCLUSION OF RETURN ADDRESS OR COMPARABLE MECHANISM

IN COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL.

(A) IN GENERAL.It is unlawful for any person to initiate

the transmission to a protected computer of a commercial

electronic mail message that does not contain a

functioning return electronic mail address or other Internet-

based mechanism, clearly and conspicuously displayed,

that

(i) a recipient may use to submit, in a manner

specified in the message, a reply electronic mail message

or other form of Internet-based communication

requesting not to receive future commercial electronic

mail messages from that sender at the electronic mail

address where the message was received; and

(ii) remains capable of receiving such messages

or communications for no less than 30 days after the

transmission of the original message.

(B) MORE DETAILED OPTIONS POSSIBLE.The person

initiating a commercial electronic mail message may

comply with subparagraph (A)(i) by providing the recipient

a list or menu from which the recipient may choose the

specific types of commercial electronic mail messages the

recipient wants to receive or does not want to receive

from the sender, if the list or menu includes an option

under which the recipient may choose not to receive any

commercial electronic mail messages from the sender.

(C) TEMPORARY INABILITY TO RECEIVE MESSAGES OR

PROCESS REQUESTS.A return electronic mail address or

other mechanism does not fail to satisfy the requirements

of subparagraph (A) if it is unexpectedly and temporarily

unable to receive messages or process requests due to a

technical problem beyond the control of the sender if the

problem is corrected within a reasonable time period.

(4) PROHIBITION OF TRANSMISSION OF COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC

MAIL AFTER OBJECTION.

(A) IN GENERAL.If a recipient makes a request using

a mechanism provided pursuant to paragraph (3) not to

receive some or any commercial electronic mail messages

from such sender, then it is unlawful

(i) for the sender to initiate the transmission to

the recipient, more than 10 business days after the

receipt of such request, of a commercial electronic mail

message that falls within the scope of the request;

(ii) for any person acting on behalf of the sender

to initiate the transmission to the recipient, more than

10 business days after the receipt of such request,

of a commercial electronic mail message with actual

knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied on the basis

of objective circumstances, that such message falls

within the scope of the request;

(iii) for any person acting on behalf of the sender

to assist in initiating the transmission to the recipient,

through the provision or selection of addresses to which

the message will be sent, of a commercial electronic

S. 87710

mail message with actual knowledge, or knowledge

fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances,

that such message would violate clause (i) or (ii); or

(iv) for the sender, or any other person who knows

that the recipient has made such a request, to sell,

lease, exchange, or otherwise transfer or release the

electronic mail address of the recipient (including

through any transaction or other transfer involving

mailing lists bearing the electronic mail address of

the recipient) for any purpose other than compliance

with this Act or other provision of law.

(B) SUBSEQUENT AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT.A prohibition

in subparagraph (A) does not apply if there is affirmative

consent by the recipient subsequent to the request under

subparagraph (A).

(5) INCLUSION OF IDENTIFIER, OPT-OUT, AND PHYSICAL

ADDRESS IN COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL.(A) It is unlawful

for any person to initiate the transmission of any commercial

electronic mail message to a protected computer unless the

message provides

(i) clear and conspicuous identification that the message

is an advertisement or solicitation;

(ii) clear and conspicuous notice of the opportunity

under paragraph (3) to decline to receive further commercial

electronic mail messages from the sender; and

(iii) a valid physical postal address of the sender.

(B) Subparagraph (A)(i) does not apply to the transmission

of a commercial electronic mail message if the recipient has

given prior affirmative consent to receipt of the message.

(6) MATERIALLY.For purposes of paragraph (1), the term

materially, when used with respect to false or misleading

header information, includes the alteration or concealment of

header information in a manner that would impair the ability

of an Internet access service processing the message on behalf

of a recipient, a person alleging a violation of this section,

or a law enforcement agency to identify, locate, or respond

to a person who initiated the electronic mail message or to

investigate the alleged violation, or the ability of a recipient

of the message to respond to a person who initiated the electronic

message.

(b) AGGRAVATED VIOLATIONS RELATING TO COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC

MAIL.

(1) ADDRESS HARVESTING AND DICTIONARY ATTACKS.

(A) IN GENERAL.It is unlawful for any person to initiate

the transmission, to a protected computer, of a

commercial electronic mail message that is unlawful under

subsection (a), or to assist in the origination of such message

through the provision or selection of addresses to

which the message will be transmitted, if such person

had actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied on the

basis of objective circumstances, that

(i) the electronic mail address of the recipient was

obtained using an automated means from an Internet

website or proprietary online service operated by

another person, and such website or online service

included, at the time the address was obtained, a notice

stating that the operator of such website or online

S. 87711

service will not give, sell, or otherwise transfer

addresses maintained by such website or online service

to any other party for the purposes of initiating, or

enabling others to initiate, electronic mail messages;

or

(ii) the electronic mail address of the recipient

was obtained using an automated means that generates

possible electronic mail addresses by combining

names, letters, or numbers into numerous permutations.

(B) DISCLAIMER.Nothing in this paragraph creates

an ownership or proprietary interest in such electronic

mail addresses.

(2) AUTOMATED CREATION OF MULTIPLE ELECTRONIC MAIL

ACCOUNTS.It is unlawful for any person to use scripts or

other automated means to register for multiple electronic mail

accounts or online user accounts from which to transmit to

a protected computer, or enable another person to transmit

to a protected computer, a commercial electronic mail message

that is unlawful under subsection (a).

(3) RELAY OR RETRANSMISSION THROUGH UNAUTHORIZED

ACCESS.It is unlawful for any person knowingly to relay or

retransmit a commercial electronic mail message that is unlawful

under subsection (a) from a protected computer or computer

network that such person has accessed without authorization.

(c) SUPPLEMENTARY RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.The Commission

shall by regulation, pursuant to section 13

(1) modify the 10-business-day period under subsection

(a)(4)(A) or subsection (a)(4)(B), or both, if the Commission

determines that a different period would be more reasonable

after taking into account

(A) the purposes of subsection (a);

(B) the interests of recipients of commercial electronic

mail; and

(C) the burdens imposed on senders of lawful commercial

electronic mail; and

(2) specify additional activities or practices to which subsection

(b) applies if the Commission determines that those

activities or practices are contributing substantially to the proliferation

of commercial electronic mail messages that are

unlawful under subsection (a).

(d) REQUIREMENT TO PLACE WARNING LABELS ON COMMERCIAL

ELECTRONIC MAIL CONTAINING SEXUALLY ORIENTED MATERIAL.

(1) IN GENERAL.No person may initiate in or affecting

interstate commerce the transmission, to a protected computer,

of any commercial electronic mail message that includes sexually

oriented material and

(A) fail to include in subject heading for the electronic

mail message the marks or notices prescribed by the

Commission under this subsection; or

(B) fail to provide that the matter in the message

that is initially viewable to the recipient, when the message

is opened by any recipient and absent any further actions

by the recipient, includes only

(i) to the extent required or authorized pursuant

to paragraph (2), any such marks or notices;

S. 87712

(ii) the information required to be included in the

message pursuant to subsection (a)(5); and

(iii) instructions on how to access, or a mechanism

to access, the sexually oriented material.

(2) PRIOR AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT.Paragraph (1) does not

apply to the transmission of an electronic mail message if

the recipient has given prior affirmative consent to receipt

of the message.

(3) PRESCRIPTION OF MARKS AND NOTICES.Not later than

120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the

Commission in consultation with the Attorney General shall

prescribe clearly identifiable marks or notices to be included

in or associated with commercial electronic mail that contains

sexually oriented material, in order to inform the recipient

of that fact and to facilitate filtering of such electronic mail.

The Commission shall publish in the Federal Register and

provide notice to the public of the marks or notices prescribed

under this paragraph.

(4) DEFINITION.In this subsection, the term sexually oriented

material means any material that depicts sexually

explicit conduct (as that term is defined in section 2256 of

title 18, United States Code), unless the depiction constitutes

a small and insignificant part of the whole, the remainder

of which is not primarily devoted to sexual matters.

(5) PENALTY.Whoever knowingly violates paragraph (1)

shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned

not more than 5 years, or both.

SEC. 6. BUSINESSES KNOWINGLY PROMOTED BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

WITH FALSE OR MISLEADING TRANSMISSION INFORMATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.It is unlawful for a person to promote, or

allow the promotion of, that persons trade or business, or goods,

products, property, or services sold, offered for sale, leased or offered

for lease, or otherwise made available through that trade or business,

in a commercial electronic mail message the transmission

of which is in violation of section 5(a)(1) if that person

(1) knows, or should have known in the ordinary course

of that persons trade or business, that the goods, products,

property, or services sold, offered for sale, leased or offered

for lease, or otherwise made available through that trade or

business were being promoted in such a message;

(2) received or expected to receive an economic benefit

from such promotion; and

(3) took no reasonable action

(A) to prevent the transmission; or

(B) to detect the transmission and report it to the

Commission.

It's also interesting that the acronym itself was misunderstood as meaning "you can spam" rather than it's intended meaning of "can spam" as in "throw it in the trash can"... which is what the law was writen for and intended to facilitate the government in doing...

And what from that is being followed by anybody? Nothing. It was useless politically motivated law that made it illegal for states like California and Virgina to enforce their far stricter ANTI-SPAM laws.

After going to court a few different times regarding email advertising, an associate of mine and I stopped.

With the laws in place, yeah we could still break the law, but we decided to do things in accordance with the law. Long story short, we got sued a few different times for mail that had been sent before jan. 1st. We used real headers and a physical address that we did business at, listed at the bottom of every email.

So, the messages that had been sent before the first fell under California's Business Code of conduct. Even though we started doing things legitamently, we paid the price for it.

Also, the increase cost of doing things legally became too high, and we decided to quit. A lot of other people I know who use to mail stopped once the law went into effect.

So, gentlemen, while you think the law isn't work, trust me it is. If you run in those circles, you know who's still doing what, and a lot of the old school guys still are. But almost all the people I know have given it up and moved on to porn, cause thats where the moneys at.

Atlanta Real Estate Agents

Homes For Sale In Canton Georgia