--On Thursday, 15 August, 2002 22:12 -0400 "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> wrote: > Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> writes: >> at least in the US we're extremely unlikely to get >> legislation that imposes substantial civil and criminal >> penalties, because the DMA wants to make spam legitimate, >> and they have more money (thus influence) than geeks do. > > I no longer believe that. NPR's All Things Considered, for > example, had a 12 minute three part story on spam this > evening, and their view on legislation seemed very positive. > One of the reporters noted that she'd received a dozen spams > today alone. Average people are being impacted, which means > the Direct Marketing Association will soon be arguing with a > torch-wielding mob. Somewhat more to the point, the DMA is very pragmatic. If they see the writing on the wall for "plain spam", they will almost certainly rapidly start to retreat toward "responsible spam", including opt-out systems, unenforceable laws, etc., with the claim that they are trying to find a good balance between the "needs" or marketers and consumer desires. In the last analysis, they --or at least the folks from there with whom I had some long discussions a few years ago-- understand both "backlash" and the principle that irritating people sufficiently doesn't result in more customers. Of course, from that perspective, irritating people just a bit less than "sufficiently" is just fine. On the other hand, approximations to torch-wielding mobs can be a powerful force, especially in congressional election years. And the ISPs, who don't have a lot fewer resources than DMA, are, I assume, getting fairly tired of the staffs they have to maintain to try to deal with this stuff. john