Talk:CAN-SPAM Act of 2003/Archives/2013

Inclusion of positive reaction
There was also some positive reaction to the law. It should be included in the reaction section. --Ke4roh 16:16, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This whole article is rather biased, and it should just stick with the facts.  I'm going to put a template on there.  SineSwiper (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

=Naming==i hate spam Small Text

Other countries
Why no See Also to other countries eqivilent law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Cluelessness
I still find it hard to believe that somebody could be so clueless in drawing up this law. Look at "an opt-out mechanism". Even within the provisions detailed a little further down, as plenty of us know there's absolutely no way in which a victim can be sure that the spammer is obeying the law. This is yet another reason that laws should require all direct mail advertising to be on a strictly opt-in basis.

And "a label if the content is adult" - what kind of label are we talking here? Is it something that goes in the subject line of the email, or what? -- Smjg 21:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * They could have just made it mandatory to include an extra header in the email labeled "ADVERTISEMENT", or in the title prefix with [ADVERTISEMENT], which could also apply to SMS etc, and if there is no title field, the first line of text should be prefixed with it. Then we could just make a one line filter, and sue anyone who bypasses it... -- 99.224.115.100 (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

First footnote
The first footnote doesn't seem to support either the proposition that it preempts or that it was rushed to passge. Shouldn't it be removed or better cites included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidblue (talk • contribs) 21:43, 18 May 2007

What about this section: Preemption: The CAN SPAM Act mostly preempts state laws; in particular, it was reported that the CAN SPAM Act was rushed through Congress in order to preempt a tough California SPAM law that was on the verge of being enacted. According to 15 USC s 7707(b)(1): 199.125.109.104 03:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You can spam act
This sentence:

"The CAN-SPAM Act is commonly referred to as the YOU-CAN-SPAM Act because the bill was backed by lobbyists for spammers and preempts stronger state anti-spam measures."

Should include a reference to the fact that "you can spam" also refers to the fact that the bill is an opt out law, not an opt in law. 4.233.143.98 21:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Serious Lack of Citations for CAN-SPAM and the FTC Section
I added three Fact  tags to the section and then realized that really nothing in this section is cited. I suggest adding a tag to the whole section.

The John McCain insertion looks suspiciously like it was placed by a McCain shill

Networkprosource (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not likely. His name is pretty prominent in the news stories. 199.125.109.74 (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdated language
"16 C.F.R. part 316, "Definitions and Implementation Under the CAN-SPAM Act; Final Rule" goes into effect July 7, 2008" in the fourth paragraph should be brought up to date (I write this in March 2009). It may be simply require a change to the past tense but it would be best if someone who knows the current status of the final rule did an accurate update. Billfalls (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

80/20 rule?
In the Applicability section, the third paragraph ends with "Many in the email marketing industry utilize the 80/20 rule to define commercial vs. transactional email in order to be clearly in either category." I've added a citation required tag, but more troubling is that the 80/20 rule referred to makes no sense in this context. I'm guessing that the original author mean that an email must be 80% transactional vs 20% commercial, but without a citation it's unclear. Unless someone can explain what this is supposed to mean and provide a citation, I'm inclined to simply remove the whole sentence. Inkydoo (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Does not legitimize
It is not true that you CAN-SPAM explicitly legitimizes many types of e-mail spam; what it does is to remove easy forms of redress. Civil and criminal proceedings are still possible, but they must be based on laws that are not specific to e-mail.

As an example, you could file suit for theft of service, theft by conversion and tresspass without any impediment from you CAN-SPAM. However, since the e-mail laws providing for statutory damages and access to small claims courts have been preempted, your legal expenses would be far greater than any plausible recovery. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Existing customers, harvesting
The article says existing customers are outside the Act and harvesting emails is illegal.

The Federal Trade Commission's guidelines to business disagree on both counts.

The FTC says contacting existing customers about a new product is covered by the Act.

The FTC does not mention harvesting in its 7 requirements to comply with the Act but only under penalties. A review of the Act suggests harvesting is a sentencing enhancement factor and that automated harvesting (not manual) is a violation of the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurelcooper (talk • contribs) 23:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Violations versus exascerbating actions
The article fails to distinguish between violations of you CAN-SPAM and actions that are not by themselves violations but only exascerbating actions, i.e., actions that increase the penalties for violations. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Effect on ISP filtering
S877 of 2003 explicitly retains the language in the CDA permitting an operator to exclude any material that it chooses. ISP filtering is in no way inconsistent with CAN-SPAM. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What does it have to do with spam?
On thing that's not mentioned in the article, and I think it's important, is that the Act doesn't define the word "spam" or indicate whether any given email is spam or not spam. In fact, the statute doesn't even mention the word spam. The Act's name is somewhat of a misnomer, and I think that's worth mentioning.

I don't have any source that indicates the degree to which people think that the bill defines spam, or think that something is not spam or they are not spamming because their email complies, but I think it's still worth making it clear how the act relates to spam (i.e. does not), given the name of the act. Hagrinas (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, especially since spammers keep insisting that their spam isn't spam because it allegedly complies with you CAN-SPAM. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Criminal enforcement
This section is horrible... according to this there are 3 or 4 different cases which were all the first to be prosecuted or convicted or charged or whatever... Sstiebinger (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)