es with unlimited email addresses, even if someone does opt out of a spam email they will still likely be contacted by the same spammer, from a different address. In fact, this very policy is likely to give spammers confirmed lists of people who respond to spam!

One thing the CAN SPAM act does do well is allow ISP's the right to handle spam as they see fit. This means that resources like the SPAMHAUS PBL can b

In 2003 we saw the introduction of the CAN-SPAM act which, regretably is a step in the wrong direction by the US government. This article provides my own personal opinion of why.

Firstly, let's look at what the act does do. It makes it legal to send spam, but only in a specific way. It is illegal to send spam through virus infected or compromised machines - but then use of these things is illegal anyway. Spam must be sent from a valid e-mail address, and must provide a valid opt-out method.

Essentially what this means is that spammers can send anyone they want a mail and it is up to the recipient to opt-out of receiving more. Let's apply this reasoning to other laws - I can rob you once, and if you would prefer I discontinued please send me a letter. I can rape you or kill you - please tell me if you would like me to stop and after this one time. Yes I realise I robbed you before - but that was a house burglary, this is a car burglary which you haven't yet opted out of. This sort of thinking is obviously non-sensical. If spam is to be regulated against - as it is, and if it is an infringement of peoples rights - as it is, and if you want to stop it - as we do, then why would anyone consider such a farsical law would make any difference.

Spam is bulk unsolicited mail, but the CAN SPAM act has attempted to redefine it as bulk unsolicited mail from a hidden address without an opt out. This represents a serious lack of understanding of exactly what the problem is. If you can send the first spam legally, who is to say whether the second spam is a follow up, or a new legal first spamming? A domain name costs a few dollars, and comes with unlimited email addresses, even if someone does opt out of a spam email they will still likely be contacted by the same spammer, from a different address. In fact, this very policy is likely to give spammers confirmed lists of people who respond to spam!

One thing the CAN SPAM act does do well is allow ISP's the right to handle spam as they see fit. This means that resources like the SPAMHAUS PBL can b

am must be sent from a valid e-mail address, and must provide a valid opt-out method.

Essentially what this means is that spammers can send anyone they want a mail and it is up to the recipient to opt-out of receiving more. Let's apply this reasoning to other laws - I can rob you once, and if you would prefer I discontinued please send me a letter. I can rape you or kill you - please tell me if you would like me to stop and after this one time. Yes I realise I robbed you before - but that was a house burglary, this is a car burglary which you haven't yet opted out of. This sort of thinking is obviously non-sensical. If spam is to be regulated against - as it is, and if it is an infringement of peoples rights - as it is, and if you want to stop it - as we do, then why would anyone consider such a farsical law would make any difference.

Spam is bulk unsolicited mail, but the CAN SPAM act has attempted to redefine it as bulk unsolicited mail from a hidden address without an opt out. This represents a serious lack of understanding of exactly what the problem is. If you can send the first spam legally, who is to say whether the second spam is a follow up, or a new legal first spamming? A domain name costs a few dollars, and comes with unlimited email addresses, even if someone does opt out of a spam email they will still likely be contacted by the same spammer, from a different address. In fact, this very policy is likely to give spammers confirmed lists of people who respond to spam!

One thing the CAN SPAM act does do well is allow ISP's the right to handle spam as they see fit. This means that resources like the SPAMHAUS PBL can b

me to stop and after this one time. Yes I realise I robbed you before - but that was a house burglary, this is a car burglary which you haven't yet opted out of. This sort of thinking is obviously non-sensical. If spam is to be regulated against - as it is, and if it is an infringement of peoples rights - as it is, and if you want to stop it - as we do, then why would anyone consider such a farsical law would make any difference.

Spam is bulk unsolicited mail, but the CAN SPAM act has attempted to redefine it as bulk unsolicited mail from a hidden address without an opt out. This represents a serious lack of understanding of exactly what the problem is. If you can send the first spam legally, who is to say whether the second spam is a follow up, or a new legal first spamming? A domain name costs a few dollars, and comes with unlimited email addresses, even if someone does opt out of a spam email they will still likely be contacted by the same spammer, from a different address. In fact, this very policy is likely to give spammers confirmed lists of people who respond to spam!

One thing the CAN SPAM act does do well is allow ISP's the right to handle spam as they see fit. This means that resources like the SPAMHAUS PBL can b

any difference.

Spam is bulk unsolicited mail, but the CAN SPAM act has attempted to redefine it as bulk unsolicited mail from a hidden address without an opt out. This represents a serious lack of understanding of exactly what the problem is. If you can send the first spam legally, who is to say whether the second spam is a follow up, or a new legal first spamming? A domain name costs a few dollars, and comes with unlimited email addresses, even if someone does opt out of a spam email they will still likely be contacted by the same spammer, from a different address. In fact, this very policy is likely to give spammers confirmed lists of people who respond to spam!

One thing the CAN SPAM act does do well is allow ISP's the right to handle spam as they see fit. This means that resources like the SPAMHAUS PBL can b

es with unlimited email addresses, even if someone does opt out of a spam email they will still likely be contacted by the same spammer, from a different address. In fact, this very policy is likely to give spammers confirmed lists of people who respond to spam!

One thing the CAN SPAM act does do well is allow ISP's the right to handle spam as they see fit. This means that resources like the SPAMHAUS PBL can be used to block spam at it's base.

One final point that is often overlooked is that while the USA has attempted to legislate spam, most countries have outright banned it. This means that the same email sent to a US address and, for instance, and english address can be both legal and illegal. Spammers claiming protection under the CAN SPAM act can only do so within the USA, and can still be prosecuted offshore.