CAN-SPAM and pornographic spam

[Roy Badami <ro...@gnomon.org.uk>]

I'm surprised that I haven't seen this discussed yet, so I thought I'd
ask: now that the FTC has made its ruling as to the mandatory
subject-line label for pornographic spam, are the spamassassin
developers intending to add a rule for it, or do they think it is
pointless?

Executive summary: the subject line of all pornographic spam sent to
US systems must begin with "SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT: " exactly as shown
(excluding the quotes, but including the final space) in upper case,
in ASCII, as the first 19 characters of the subject line.

The rule comes into force on 19th May.

FTC press release here: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/04/adultlabel.htm

Federal Register notice (including background and text of the rule)
here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/04/040413adultemailfinalrule.pdf

	-roy

Re: CAN-SPAM and pornographic spam

[Roy Badami <ro...@gnomon.org.uk>]

>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com> writes:

    Daniel> I don't hate CAN-SPAM, I just haven't seen any positive
    Daniel> effect nor do I expect much of one.

It's too early to tell.  A lot will depend on the outcome of the seven
pending CAN-SPAM actions...

It also remains to be seen how effective CAN-SPAM will be against
off-shore spammers, but at least in some cases courts will likely find
a relevent connection to the US that gives them jurisdiction, even if
any resulting judgements will be difficult or impossible to enforce...
Though it looks like with the porn spam provisions this will be much
harder...

But as I say, it's way too early to tell...

	-roy

Re: CAN-SPAM and pornographic spam

[Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com>]

Roy Badami <ro...@gnomon.org.uk> writes:

> Well, in a world where spam filters were properly under the control of
> their users (rather than their ISPs) and easily configurable, there'd
> be little disincentive for porn spammers to comply.

In your theory, there's still no incentive.  The cost to the spammer is
the same, especially if he's off-shore, already breaking FTC guidelines,
violating CAN-SPAM, etc.

And what about company filters, parents with adolescents, etc.

> Porn spammers aren't exactly going to make any money out of people who
> dislike porn, and those people who actively want this mail (I'm sure
> they exist) would quickly learn how to accept it.

This is not even strictly true.  An accidental page load can still
generate ad revenue for a spammer.

> I guess it all boils down to whether you're a CAN-SPAM hater, or see
> it as a (small) step in the right direction...

That's an either-or fallacy.

I don't hate CAN-SPAM, I just haven't seen any positive effect nor do I
expect much of one.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Quinlan                     anti-spam (SpamAssassin), Linux,
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/    and open source consulting

Re: CAN-SPAM and pornographic spam

[Roy Badami <ro...@gnomon.org.uk>]

>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com> writes:

    Daniel> Maybe it'll be used by some spammers and will be worth a
    Daniel> rule, but it's not that exciting.

Well, in a world where spam filters were properly under the control of
their users (rather than their ISPs) and easily configurable, there'd
be little disincentive for porn spammers to comply.

Porn spammers aren't exactly going to make any money out of people who
dislike porn, and those people who actively want this mail (I'm sure
they exist) would quickly learn how to accept it.

I guess it all boils down to whether you're a CAN-SPAM hater, or see
it as a (small) step in the right direction...

	-roy

Re: CAN-SPAM and pornographic spam

[Roy Badami <ro...@gnomon.org.uk>]

One other comment: a rule for this should have a near-zero
false-positive rate.

The punctuation in the tag (particularly the hyphen) is deliberate, to
prevent it matching ordinary English language text, and since it has
to occur at the beginning of the subject, 'Re:' and 'Fwd:' tags and
the like would prevent a rule from matching.

I'm rather pleasantly surprized that the FTC has (purposefully, it
appears) come up with a label that is designed to be useful to spam
filters...

	-roy

Re: CAN-SPAM and pornographic spam

[Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com>]

Roy Badami <ro...@gnomon.org.uk> writes:

> Executive summary: the subject line of all pornographic spam sent to
> US systems must begin with "SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT: " exactly as shown
> (excluding the quotes, but including the final space) in upper case,
> in ASCII, as the first 19 characters of the subject line.

*yawn*

Maybe it'll be used by some spammers and will be worth a rule, but it's
not that exciting.

-- 
Daniel Quinlan                     anti-spam (SpamAssassin), Linux,
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/    and open source consulting

CAN-SPAM and pornographic spam

[Roy Badami <ro...@gnomon.org.uk>]

>>>>> "Roy" == Roy Badami <ro...@gnomon.org.uk> writes:

    Roy> Executive summary: the subject line of all pornographic spam
    Roy> sent to US systems must begin with "SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT: "
    Roy> exactly as shown

Hmm, just to correct myself, it seems to be only spam sent between US
systems (in different states) that this applies to; well, probably
slightly broader than that, but certainly narrower than the rest of
CAN-SPAM.  Specifically, there's a reference to inter-state commerce
in this provision of the Act which is absent from the other main
provisions of CAN-SPAM.

Not that this is entirely relevent, but it makes it less likely that
non-US spammers will feel any pressure to adopt it to avoid falling
foul of US law.

	-roy