* Outlawing spam won’t deter many
Here are some subject lines in spam I have received within the past day: “morphine vancouver desolate,” “bepnet termize wjyxmjxrxs fpkvpg,” “Cheat small genetics ajn lwmaceqv ug ni,” and “Michaep,watch paytv frees yhqvaiqsryue.” All of these represent feeble attempts to combat spam-blocking tools, attempts that are very easy to defeat with even the most basic spam-blocking technologies. I retrieved all of these from my quarantine, not my inbox, proving that even a simple spam-blocking technology easily detected all of these messages.
Part of what these subject lines reveal is that anyone – literally, anyone – can become a spammer with virtually no investment other than a low-end computer, an Internet connection and a few dollars for a CD-ROM full of e-mail addresses and e-mail broadcasting software. More importantly, what this indicates is that a significant portion of the spammer community is relatively unsophisticated and, therefore, very unlikely to pay much attention to the anti-spam laws that most states already have on the books and that the U.S. and other governments have passed or will pass in the near future.
For example, California’s new anti-spam law (California Business and Professions Code 17529.1 through 17529.9) contains a number of provisions, including a prohibition on sending an “unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement to a California electronic mail address.” Further, the new law defines a “California electronic mail address” as one that has been provided to a California resident, one that is provided by a service provider that bills from California, or one that is normally accessed by a computer in California.
How many of you believe that someone who sends you a spam with the subject line “Fw: tenterhooks Due Balance, acct qxfjppwsj” is going to be sophisticated enough or even willing to follow all of the provisions of California’s anti-spam law, as well as Utah’s, Arizona’s, Illinois’ – well, you get the idea.
In short, anti-spam laws will be almost completely ineffective against all but the most egregious, high-profile spammers. Anti-spam legislation satisfies politicians hoping to please constituents and those afflicted with “do-something disease,” but they don’t do much to solve the problem they’re intended to solve. I’d like to get your thoughts on this. Please drop me a line at mailto:michael@ostermanresearch.com
