The conspiracy against our in-boxes

Why trusted bulk email is an oxymoron


Opinion Powerful forces in the IT industry and government are coming together to redefine unsolicited bulk email from mainstream organisations as legitimate, irrespective of whether the sender wants to receive it. Ultimately this move could even result in lawsuits against anti-spam developers by the Direct Marketing Association and its cronies.

Sounds paranoid? Read on, gentle reader.

Through parallel developments, the US government and IT heavyweights are working to redefine spam as fraudulent - and not just unwanted - bulk email.

This month the US Senate voted unanimously to support measures that would attempt to stop spammers remaining anonymous and providing false return email addresses. All well and good, but the measures also legalise opt-out spamming, so e-marketers don't need to ask permission before sending out commercial email.

UK politicians attempted to persuade the Senate that the US should adopt a more restrictive opt-in approach. They failed. Call us cynical, but comments from members of the All Party Parliamentary Internet Group that identical legislation on both sides of the Atlantic is not needed simply do not ring true.

Meanwhile we learn, via the Washington Post, that Microsoft, America Online, Yahoo and EarthLink are close to the completion of their trusted sender programme.

The project, set up in April this year, will allow "legitimate senders of emails to distinguish themselves from spammers," according to Harry Katz, a Microsoft program manager.

Last month, the Network Advertising Initiative announced a plan (called Project Lumos) to "certify email and to electronically measure the reputations of bulk mailers".

The aim of both schemes is to adapt email systems so that they recognise "good unsolicited bulk email" from fraudulent spam and discard only the latter.

ISPs would adjust their systems to block bulk email which omits certification that it comes from a bulk mailer. The bulk emailer would voluntarily agree to abide by a code of conduct.

Trusted spam – no thanks

We don't buy the idea that e-marketing groups are concerned about the nuisance value and time wasted dealing with unsolicited messages - if they did they would support the opt-in approach.

With opt-in, e-marketers need to seek permission of consumers before they send out commercial emails. By contrast, under an opt-out approach a person would have to ask to be removed from a particular mailing list. The latter more lax approach is favoured by the Direct Marketing Association and many of the most prolific bulk mailers currently in operation.

Instead their primary concern is that fear of fraud has a big effect on response levels to commercial mail.

Assuming that the trusted sender programme does what it says on the tin (a big question in itself) particularly given the resourcefulness of Dark Side spammers - then what next?

We fear they'll start to focus on why spam filters block these legitimate "marketing messages" from "trusted senders" from getting through to their intended recipients.

From there it's only a short step to restraint of trade lawsuits against filtering technology suppliers. Maybe it won’t come to this, but we’re heading for in-box meltdown so long as the interests of the Direct Marketing Association hold more sway than those of the consumer. ®

Related Stories

Web giants to declare war on spam
Microsoft declares war on spam
Trust me, I'm a spam message!
We hate Spam (email your friends)
US anti-spam laws 'will legalise spam'
US should follow EU lead on spam - MPs
MPs head to US on anti spam mission
UK Govt fouls up anti-spam plans, say experts
MP unleashes brilliant anti-spam plan


Other stories you might like

  • You need to RTFM, but feel free to use your brain too
    But I was only following the procedures!

    Who, Me? Monday is here, and with it a warning that steadfast determination to ignore instructions might not be such a silly thing after all. Welcome to Who, Me?

    Today's story comes from a reader Regomized as "Sam" and takes us back to his first proper IT job following his departure from the education system.

    Sam found himself on the mainframe operations team for a telecommunications company. The work was, initially, pretty manual stuff. The telco wasn't silly, and had its new recruits start by performing offline duties, such as gathering tapes and job tickets for batch runs, handling payslips, "basically anything involving a bit of leg work," he told us.

    Continue reading
  • Tropical island paradise ponders tax-free 'Digital Nomad Visa'
    Live and work in Bali, pay tax at home

    The government of Indonesia has once again raised the idea of creating a "digital nomad visa" that would allow foreign workers to live and work in the tropical paradise of Bali, tax free, for five years.

    The idea was raised before the COVID-19 pandemic, but understandably shelved as borders closed and the prospect of any digital nomads showing up dropped to zero.

    But in recent interviews Sandiaga Uno, Indonesia's minister for Tourism and the Creative Economy, said the visa was back on the drawing board.

    Continue reading
  • Small in Japan: Hitachi creates its own (modest) cloud
    VMware-powered sovereign cloud not going to challenge hyperscalers, but probably won't be the last such venture

    Hitachi has taken a modest step towards becoming a public cloud provider, with the launch of a VMware-powered cloud in Japan that The Register understands may not be its only such venture.

    The Japanese giant has styled the service a "sovereign cloud" – a term that VMware introduced to distinguish some of its 4,000-plus partners that operate small clouds and can attest to their operations being subject to privacy laws and governance structures within the nation in which they operate.

    Public cloud heavyweights AWS, Azure, Google, Oracle, IBM, and Alibaba also offer VMware-powered clouds, at hyperscale. But some organizations worry that their US or Chinese roots make them vulnerable to laws that might allow Washington or Beijing to exercise extraterritorial oversight.

    Continue reading
  • Beijing probes security at academic journal database
    It's easy to see why – the question is, why now?

    China's internet regulator has launched an investigation into the security regime protecting academic journal database China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), citing national security concerns.

    In its announcement of the investigation, the China Cyberspace Administration (CAC) said:

    Continue reading
  • Cerebras sets record for 'largest AI model' on a single chip
    Plus: Yandex releases 100-billion-parameter language model for free, and more

    In brief US hardware startup Cerebras claims to have trained the largest AI model on a single device powered by the world's largest Wafer Scale Engine 2 chip the size of a plate.

    "Using the Cerebras Software Platform (CSoft), our customers can easily train state-of-the-art GPT language models (such as GPT-3 and GPT-J) with up to 20 billion parameters on a single CS-2 system," the company claimed this week. "Running on a single CS-2, these models take minutes to set up and users can quickly move between models with just a few keystrokes."

    The CS-2 packs a whopping 850,000 cores, and has 40GB of on-chip memory capable of reaching 20 PB/sec memory bandwidth. The specs on other types of AI accelerators and GPUs pale in comparison, meaning machine learning engineers have to train huge AI models with billions of parameters across more servers.

    Continue reading
  • Zendesk sold to private investors two weeks after saying it would stay public
    Private offer 34 percent above share price is just the thing to change minds

    Customer service as-a-service vendor Zendesk has announced it will allow itself to be acquired for $10.2 billion by a group of investors led by private equity firm Hellman & Friedman, investment company Permira, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority.

    The decision is a little odd, in light of the company's recent strategic review, announced on June, which saw the board unanimously conclude "that continuing to execute on the Company's strategic plan as an independent, public company is in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders at this time."

    That process saw Zendesk chat to 16 potential strategic partners and ten financial sponsors, including a group of investors who had previously expressed conditional interest in acquiring the company. Zendesk even extended its discussions with some parties but eventually walked away after "no actionable proposals were submitted, with the final bidders citing adverse market conditions and financing difficulties at the end of the process."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022