Getting on Top of Spam Down Under 128
The Register is reporting that Australia has implemented a new industry code for the regulation of email with respect to spam. From the article: "Under the new code, internet service providers (ISPs) will bear some of the responsibility for helping fight spam. Service providers must offer spam-filtering options to their subscribers and advise them on how to best deal with and report the nuisance mail. ISPs will also be compelled to impose 'reasonable' limits on subscribers' sending email."
Hmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Agh (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say the kind of spam filter I'd prefer does not delete any mails, just tags them so I easily can do any filtering I want with them. But oh, I forgot. You don't have to know how to use a computer to use a computer. That is, people could never be bothered with something like that.
Hows does it define SPAM ? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's appreciated, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's another token effort.
internet service providers (ISPs) will bear some of the responsibility for helping fight spam.
Some is not all, which means that any percentage they block meets the requirement. If they delete one, and pass 1000 - that fits the definition of some.
ISPs will also be compelled to impose 'reasonable' limits on subscribers' sending email.
Do any spammers use their own account for outbound spam?
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
While elitest, you fail to grasp what the grand parent was saying;
ISPs should be doing this anyway, to save on bandwidth. This has nothing to do with a user. Hell, I'm careful with my email address, and I still get spam.
It can be considered a truth; The probability of any email address recieving spam approaches 1 in direct relation to said address's age.
So your comment really makes no sense. Yes, I tag my spam and filter it on my own. But I also have my mail server setup to check spamhaus so I can *NOT* recieve that mail in the first place.
Re:Hows does it define SPAM ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the legislation [comlaw.gov.au] - and a link to the rather more helpful plain english explanation of what constitutes a commercial message [dcita.gov.au]
Quoting it: So... if you're a marketing company (doing a survey), a church, political party or charity, feel free to spam whomever you choose - in Australia, or abroad, the government wont touch you.
Re:Agh (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, you can easily arrange for all accounts to be limited to 50 outgoing email/day unless the person has a valid credit card that gets charged a $1 set up fee, or they receive by regular mail a form, that they must sign and mail back.
The few NON-spammers that send more than 50 out going/day should be either willing to wait for their 51st email per day or pay $1. I can't see anyone except spammers being pissed off about this.
Laws hit ISPs because Foreign Spammers ignore them (Score:3, Insightful)
If they write laws that are too draconian, they'll break all the Aussie email providers and ISPs, and you'll will be stuck using Telstra to reach email providers in the US or Hong Kong - and Linux users probably won't be able to run their own email at home unless UUCP slides by the rules...
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Then, you know where this road takes you.
Dear Mr grasshoppa, in our fight against spam, side by side with the legal forces and (somehow) following their indications, we have to tell you we're going to shut down all your towards-port-25 traffic. Sorry for the incoveniencies.
Only they won't send the letter, you'll find suddenly because your mailq is steadily growing and no mail is going off.
And among the minority that will pay a bit of attention to it at all, quite a big percentage will be saying "after all, no honest individual has any need for a local MTA; they should be using their ISP's anyway".