Update: spam control

Many retailers (both the “bricks” and the “clicks” types) use volume e-mail as an inexpensive, effective tool for marketing and communicating with customers. Anti-spam efforts impact all volume e-mailers—both the legitimate retailer using e-mail for marketing and those who hawk the latest “snake-oil” or worse.

Here’s the latest from the front lines of the war against spam:

CAN-SPAM not working

The Federal CAN-SPAM Act, signed by President Bush in December 2003, has made little dent so far in the volume of spam being sent.

A recent study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that the CAN-SPAM Act has not yet made any difference in the amount of spam being received. Three quarters of respondents said they saw no change in the pattern of spam they received.

Further, studies conducted by two spam-filtering companies, CommTouch Software and MxLogic, have revealed that 90 to 99

percent of all unsolicited e-mails received by their clients do not comply with the law.

To be fair, enforcement actions have only just begun. But experts don’t foresee the act having much of a real effect on the proportion of spam in e-mail.

‘Brown paper wrapper’

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently adopted a rule that promises to go after those raunchy e-mail messages that unexpectedly show up in inboxes, sometimes containing graphic images.

Starting May 19th, all unsolicited, sexually explicit e-mail must be clearly labeled and must “hide” its sexual content from unwilling recipients. The FTC is calling it a “brown paper wrapper,” like those used in the physical world to cover up a skin magazine at a newsstand.

This is part of the CAN-SPAM Act passed by Congress late last year. FTC consumer affairs attorney Jon Kraden says enforcement may be a challenge. But all spammers are required to follow the new rules.

E-postage?

In January, Bill Gates predicted that the spam problem will be solved within two years, and then suggested that some system of making spammers pay to send e-mail is a promising solution.

In addition, the idea of e-mail postage is getting a second look from the owners of the two largest e-mail systems in the world, Yahoo! and Microsoft.

One intriguing approach comes from a startup called Goodmail Systems. Rather than filtering out spam, Goodmail focuses on identifying and delivering what it terms “trusted class e-mail” (where the sender’s address and opt-out mechanism are verified) to inboxes, allowing filters to catch the rest.

Senders buy e-stamps (perhaps 1 cent each) from Goodmail, which would be cost-prohibitive to spammers, who send millions of e-mails to profit from a very few replies. Legitimate volume-mailers are guaranteed that their messages will reach their audience—for a price. Read more about Goodmail at www.goodmailsystems.com.

U of M innovators

A team of researchers at the University of Michigan is promoting an alternative plan for controlling e-mail that they argue is superior to various e-postage systems being considered.

Researchers Thede Loder, Marshall Van Alstyne and Rick Wash say a bonded-message system has several advantages over e-postage. They have applied for a patent and have discussed the concept with the FTC.

In this approach, called the Attention Bond Mechanism, senders post a small “bond” (a matter of cents) to a third party, such as an Internet service provider, Yahoo!, Paypal or some other escrow service. Essentially, they risk this small sum to get the brief attention of the recipient.

If the recipient deems the message to be spam (not of value or interest), he or she can click a button to claim that bond money to compensate for wasted time. If the recipient does nothing, or views the content as valuable, the sum is returned to the sender. Friends, family and other familiar correspondents would put each other on “white lists”—their e-mails would bypass the “bond” system completely.

For more information, see their FAQ at www.eecs.umich.edu/~tloder/abm_faq.html.

Return to May Michigan Retailer Page one • MRA home