RSS
Twitter
CAN SPAM Effectiveness Questioned
from the surprise-surprise... dept
It's unlikely that this is a surprise to anyone who actually uses email, but more people are starting to wonder why we bothered with the CAN SPAM law, when it appears to have done next to nothing in actually slowing down the parade of spam in our in-boxes. In fact, most people have experienced more spam. When the law was first passed, we asked what was the backup plan by the government if (when) the law proved ineffective, and the answer is that they don't have one. We also noted that the original sponsors said the bill would work "with the proper enforcement" which gave them an obvious scapegoat when the law didn't work at all. So is it at all surprising that this is exactly what the sponsors are now saying? The latest article quotes CAN SPAM sponsor Conrad Burns saying that "enforcement is key" in getting the law to work.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given
explain to me what the government can actually do about this, and why we're casting the problem upon them? The only reason why spam is still on the rise is because people RESPOND to the spam. If people stopped giving spammers a source of revenue, they'd dry up the natural market way. Instead, people actually give in to the crap.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment