O'Bannon signs anti-spam bill

Say goodbye to porn, special deals and super savings. Indiana Governor Frank O'Bannon signed an anti-spam bill recently that will go into effect June 1, which means your inbox may be a little less cluttered by unwanted e-mail advertisements this summer. \nSpam, or unsolicited electronic mail sent by marketers hoping to reap the benefits of the low-cost method of advertising, will be harder to send legally after House Bill 1083 takes hold. More important, spam recipients will have the ability to take official recourse against spammers.\nIU has not had many problems with managing spam in the past, but at the beginning of this year, the flood of unsolicited e-mails on IU's servers reached a fever-pitch and University Information Technology Services was forced to step in and take action to ensure continuous mail delivery. \nRick Jackson, manager of messaging at UITS, said that he usually expects to see a gradual increase in mail load over time, but this was something completely different.\n"In October, our mail volume doubled in one day -- we went from handling about one million inbound messages a day to between two and three million. There's no way to anticipate things like that," Jackson said. \nTo counteract the deluge, UITS implemented the Spamhaus Block List, which filters incoming mail and blocks those sent from the offenders listed in its database. \nThe SBL has reduced the weight of spam on IU's servers, but UITS is still researching other spam-reducing options that do not carry the risk of blocking legitimate e-mail. \nA pilot program, which will rate incoming e-mail by the probability of it being spam, is under construction, Jackson said. UITS has been evaluating the software for about a year, and the program may become part of IU's system as early as this summer. \nIndiana joins almost 30 other states in adopting legislation to control spam. Under the new law, similar to those in other states, senders of mass e-mails can no longer use third-party domain names without permission. This is an effective tool for marketers because if the mail is sent from an address that looks familiar or reputable, the recipient is more likely to pay attention or respond to it. Spammers also can't misrepresent the source of the e-mail or use misleading subject lines, which are common practices of spammers attempting to fool the receiver into visiting their Web sites or buying their products.\nA few court cases have questioned the constitutionality of anti-spam legislation using the First Amendment as a defense for spam. However, the laws have been upheld in all cases. \nAssociate University Council and Special Assistant for Policy and Procedures Beth Cate said less protection is given to commercial speech. She said the rules put in place are not there in an attempt to restrict free speech, but to clarify and regulate a practice that costs recipients time and money.\n"Nothing in the First Amendment gives a person the right to engage in fraud," she said. \nFalsification of origin, which is now prohibited, falls outside the scope of that protection. House Bill 1083 provides other strict guidelines for spammers. The subject line on commercial email must begin with the letters "ADV:" or, for adult-oriented subject matter, "ADV:ADLT." In addition, there has to be a provision for recipients to request removal from the mailing list. E-mail addresses are not to be rented to other businesses, and those who receive offending mail in Indiana can sue the sender for $500 per piece of mail found to be in violation.\nIU Distinguished Professor of Law Fred Cate warns that the law may not be the cure-all for annoying e-mails.\n"Anyone who thinks law will be the silver bullet that stops this kind of action is out of luck," he said. \nThe most treacherous aspect of Internet law is figuring out to whom it applies, Cate said. In this case, the sender must be aware that the address he or she is targeting is in Indiana, and there is often a lack of method or a lack of motivation to obtain that information. \nStill, Cate said the law might have an impact on would-be spammers who fear legal recourse.\n"My guess is the law would create enough threat that just pointing at it would be enough to stop (spamming)," he said.