[Fair Use for Education and Research Purpose Only]

http://comment.cio.com/sound.cfm?ID=30

Should Spam Be Outlawed?

January 19, 2000  Spam is annoying. It crowds in-boxes, hawks porno sites and get rich schemes, and unlike the junk mail of yesteryear, it clogs networks and forces consumers to foot the bill for download time. Like all things loathsome and horrific, it should be banned. Or so a group of anti-spam activists implies in their latest assault. The Forum for Responsible and Ethical E-mail (FREE), ChooseYourMail.com, a for-profit outfit that bills itself as a responsible marketing alternative to spam, and the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email (CAUCE) have denounced a service that the Direct Marketing Association launched last week, and have reiterated their call for legislation that will put federal reigns on spam. The DMAs Electronic Mail Preference Service (e-MPS at www.e-mps.org) is an opt-out database where spam-hating consumers can register, with the understanding that responsible marketers (and all members of the DMA) will clean their lists of all registered names. One of our greatest fears is that e-MPS is going to encourage the use of spam among its member companies who havent yet considered it, says John Mozena, co-founder and VP of CAUCE. DMA has been the source of information on direct marketing for decades, so its members may say, if this is the DMAs policy for e-mail marketing, it must be right. Along with promoting spam among companies that havent yet employed it, say anti-spammers, e-MPS threatens the successful passage of some anti-spam bills pending in Congress. e-MPS is just a smokescreen, says Ian Oxman, president of ChooseYourMail.com and co-organizer of a boycott against e-MPS. Its the DMA saying dont regulate us; were doing it ourselves. While most anti-spammers would admit that legislation is a last resort, they are pushing for it hard. Both CAUCE and FREE are behind legislation that would force spammers to respect the no-soliciting here policies posted by whole domains, such as corporations and ISPs. Because most corporations and ISPs, interested in keeping their networks clean and their users protected, would in all likelihood post such policies, spammers would be out of business. If anti-spam legislation is approved by Congress, marketers will be prohibited from using a potentially powerful marketing tool. But are we throwing the baby out with the bath water? Yes, porno spam sent to minors should be made illegal. Its hard to argue with that. But should the same rules apply to reputable marketers seeking an audience? Should Proctor & Gamble be prohibited from conducting mass mailingsa marketing technique on which companies have relied for more than fifty yearson the Internet? Should ISPs have the power to stop P&G from reaching its potential customers? Should the government tell marketers how to do their jobs? Tell us what you think. Should spam be outlawed?

Web Writer Martha Heller can be reached at mheller@cio.com.

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), January 23, 2000

Answers

It's hard to cook with.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), January 23, 2000.

Should Spam Be Outlawed?

YES! along with Velveeta and Miricle Whip : P

-- Charli (claypool@belatlantic.net), January 23, 2000.

Dee, I fired AOL because of the amount of spam/pornography. When I called to fire them, I kept getting transferred to bigger and better sales pitches, and stayed on the phone line just asking for verbal confirmation from each party that my account was cancelled! The last deal was 2 years free service. I refused. They kept offering spam filters during my call, but I had requested help with that so many times through e-mail etc. that their verbal offer only when I mentioned ending my account was "too little too late".

In Baltimore they cal AOL "AmericaOnHell" for good reasons!

I first went through my long distance company instead, and was MUCH happier--no spam! I went to www.att.com. Depending on your long distance provider, if you enter their url, then they most likely will give you a free 30-day trial to compare it to your AOhelL, and you will see the difference! Plus, the internet service will likely be on your phone bill, making monthly bills a little easier to manage.

Unfortunately, many phone isp's require you to switch your long distance service to them, so it is easiest to go through your current long distance provider.

I have cable service in my area now, and cannot say enough good things about it! It costs me $45 a month, which includes the $15 modem rental (which is better than buying the modem, considering I get it replaced for free as it fails with current dirty power and so it needs replacing every 6 months or so anyway; it is a motorolla).

It you have a cable isp service in your area, it is worth the money if you are paying for a second phone line for internet already. Once you cross the line by paying for an extra phone line for the internet than you have IMO become the ideal candidate for cable access, which is 100 to 500 times faster, on 24 hours a day so no call-up time drains, and truly $29/month + $15 for modem. Free house calls when I have problems...can't say enough:)

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 23, 2000.

Hokie,

Thank you for the good post. =)

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), January 23, 2000.

Hokie,

I agree with you about AOL. I use it only as a back-up to my normal ISP. I'm disgusted with the repeated porno and get rich e-mail spams I get. My in-box is always filled with this cr*p! I get no spam whatsoever with my regular ISP.

The only reason I keep AOL is so I can have internet access when I visit my family in Ohio.

Does anyone have any suggestions for another ISP (rather than AOL) with coverage throughout the United States?

-- Cheryl (Transplant@Oregon.com), January 23, 2000.

The only way they get my SPAM away from me is to pry it out of my cold, dead fingers! It is wonderful to cook with: SPAM 'n rice, sweet 'n sour SPAM, Split pea soup with SPAM, SPAM 'n eggs, Spaghetti ala carbonara (SPAM style), spam & eggs, SPAM & broccoli quiche, SPAM musubi, etc. In short, SPAM is a fine, storable meat product made by Hormel.

Now, junk e-mail, on the other hand...

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), January 24, 2000.

"most anti-spammers would admit that legislation is a last resort"

As well it should be. SPAM is annoying, but we don't need more laws.

-- 2 (cool@to.core), January 25, 2000.