06-11-2008, 01:34 PM
Quote:I just stumbled onto the fact that the FTC recently announced some changes to the Can-Spam Act, or as I started calling it even before it was enacted, the "Yes, You Can Spam Act." Could it be that the FTC has come up with some fixes that will help? Well, no, I'm afraid not...
...another of the new rules takes the worst aspect of Can-Spam -- the fact that we are all expected to opt out from every spamming list using the opt-out procedure designated by the spammer -- and makes it even worse. In "scenarios where multiple marketers use a single e-mail message" to spam you, only one of the senders - the one in the From: field -- need be designated the official sender who is responsible for honoring opt-outs. That means the other "marketers" who used that spam message, not to mention the spamming service that actually provided the e-mail address list, don't need to honor opt-outs. So try as you might to get yourself off a list, the real spammer can just keep changing the designated sender in the From: field and legally keep on spamming you....
full article: http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/ar...es_yo.html
The FTC announcement:
Quote:FTC Approves New Rule Provision Under The CAN-SPAM Actfull FTC announcement: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/05/canspam.shtm
The Federal Trade Commission has approved four new rule provisions under the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM or the Act). The provisions are intended to clarify the Actâs requirements. The provisions and the Commissionâs Statement of Basis and Purpose (SBP) will be published in the Federal Register shortly.
The new rule provisions address four topics: (1) an e-mail recipient cannot be required to pay a fee, provide information other than his or her e-mail address and opt-out preferences, or take any steps other than sending a reply e-mail message or visiting a single Internet Web page to opt out of receiving future e-mail from a sender; (2) the definition of âsenderâ was modified to make it easier to determine which of multiple parties advertising in a single e-mail message is responsible for complying with the Actâs opt-out requirements; (3) a âsenderâ of commercial e-mail can include an accurately-registered post office box or private mailbox established under United States Postal Service regulations to satisfy the Actâs requirement that a commercial e-mail display a âvalid physical postal addressâ; and (4) a definition of the term âpersonâ was added to clarify that CAN-SPAMâs obligations are not limited to natural persons.
In addition, the SBP accompanying the final rule also addresses a number of topics that are not the subject of any new rule provisions. These include: CAN-SPAMâs definition of âtransactional or relationship messageâ; the Commissionâs decision not to alter the length of time a âsenderâ of commercial e-mail has to honor an opt-out request; the Commissionâs determination not to designate additional âaggravated violationsâ under the Act; and the Commissionâs views on how CAN-SPAM applies to forward-to-a-âfriendâ e-mail marketing campaigns, in which someone either receives a commercial e-mail message and forwards the e-mail to another person, or uses a Web-based mechanism to forward a link to or copy of a Web page to another person. The SBP explains that, as a general matter, if the seller offers something of value in exchange for forwarding a commercial message, the seller must comply with the Actâs requirements, such as honoring opt-out requests....