by Lance Ulanoff - PC Magazine
In the past few weeks, I have heard reports that spam is finally
dying. But to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of its death have been
The reality at least according to companies tracking and
stopping/catching spam for other major corporations and an
unscientific survey of my own readers is that spam remains a major
problem for both companies and individuals. Roughly 80-85 percent of
the world's e-mail is spam. Thanks to the innovative technologies
provided by McAfee, MailFrontier, FrontBridge, MessageLabs, and
others, we're seeing less of it on our desktops and in our
in-boxes. But we need to face facts. Spam hasn't disappeared. It's
just being corralled briskly into holding pens for you and your
company to evaluate, ignore, and eventually delete. On the whole,
however, it still costs companies millions of dollars to manage spam.
The CAN-SPAM Act has not been the panacea the U.S. government planned
and has done little to stem the flow of spam onto desktops and
corporate servers. More than a year after its passage, some companies,
like enterprise antispam provider MX Logic, estimate that as little as
13 percent of spam mail complies with the law (by allowing recipients
to opt out of getting any more spam from the same sender), down from a
16 percent compliance rate in September 2004.
Perhaps the biggest development in the war against spam occurred late
last year in a Virginia courtroom, when jurors voted to convict Jeremy
Jaynes and his sister Jessica DeGroot for sending bulk e-mails under
false e-mail addresses. These were no small-time mom-and-pop felons
who did a little black-hat business. Jaynes and DeGroot were listed as
number eight on the spam watchdog group Spamhaus's list of most-wanted
spam purveyors. The conviction is potentially very good news. But the
ruling did have its share of oddities.
The trial took place in Virginia, but that's not where the spammers
are from; it's simply where the servers they used were located. More
interestingly, the jury seemed torn over the severity of DeGroot's and
Jaynes's crime, recommending a nine-year prison term and just
$7,500 in fines. I'd say they got that part backwards. I don't
know what putting these kinds of criminals behind bars will do. Better
to bar them from buying and using computers and the Internet for five
to ten years.
Likewise, spam-catching costs corporations around the world millions
of dollars each year in software, servers, and other resources. So,
$7,500 is little more than a nod toward the spammers' real fiscal
responsibilities. If Jaynes did, as prosecutors charged, make $24
million from his enterprise, he should be fined at least that much. In
Germany, they're now promising hefty fines for spammers. The
U.S. government should hurry up and do the same.
Still, the judicial victory should embolden prosecutors to go after
other spammers on Spamhaus's list. Oddly, I have yet to hear about
another spammer going to trial or jail, or even being arrested.
I guess the next logical step is for companies to go after spammers
themselves with civil lawsuits. In theory, some major corporations
should be suing Jaynes and DeGroot. They should work with state and
federal officials to time those civil suits to hit at the same time
the spammers face criminal charges. It could be a hugely effective
On the other hand, if those who believe spam is dying are right, we
can sit back, do nothing and let CAN-SPAM take its course. With a 13
percent compliance rate, those death throes should continue for
another 50 or 60 years.
Copyright 2005 Ziff Davis Inc.
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Ziff-Davis.
For more information go to: