On the three days from April 30 through Friday, May 2, 2003, 
the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) held a "Spam Forum" in 
Washington, D.C. 

According to the FTC website, the purpose of this forum was 
"to address the proliferation of unsolicited commercial e-mail 
and to explore the technical, legal, and financial issues 
associated with it."

While the FTC and other government entities try to figure out 
how they can legally address the Spam issue, they are doing so 
without consulting with those of us who run small businesses 
online. Of the 97 people who spoke at the forum, the majority 
was technicians and lawyers who represent the ISP's and 
Anti-Spam companies. A few of the people even represented 
large bulk email companies. 

Forum participants could not even agree on a proper definition 
of "spam" --- yet they propose that they are the best qualified 
to help write the laws that will eliminate spam?

My question is this, who represented the small business owner 
and the small publishers at the FTC spam forum? No one really. 
It was not because the small business segment did not have 
representatives willing to speak on their behalf. In fact, 
both I-Cop.org and OMPUAC.org --- both of whom represent 
small online businesses --- had petitioned to have their 
representatives speak at the forum, but both were turned 
down. 

You can read the list of the people who DID speak at the FTC 
"Spam Forum" at: 

   http://www.theezine.net/ftc_spam_forum.shtml

Should you honestly believe the anti-spam profiteers had your 
interests in mind when they had the opportunity to speak to 
the FTC?

Here are some of the anti-spam profiteers who found 
representation at the FTC "Spam Forum":

· Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
· SpamCon Foundation 
· SpamCop
· The Spamhaus Project 
· Habeas

Even in the hallowed lists of the anti-spam zealots, the 
profiteers aren't taken very seriously sometimes. When 
addressing Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., CEO of Habeas, Inc., 
a member of the SPAM-L list suggested: 

   "What makes you think that 'we' trust Habeas any more than 
   any other organisation whose business model depends on  
   spam continuing to exist in order to stay in business."

Good point.

William Waggoner, founder of AAW Marketing LLC in Las Vegas, 
Nevada, did actually support my own point of view. He suggested 
at the "Spam Forum" that technology techniques like spam 
filtering hurts even legitimate email marketers!

You know whom Mr. Waggoner was talking about. He was talking 
about those e-mail marketers who have actually acquired 
permission from the email recipient to send them commercial 
email. 

When someone in the forum audience laughed at his comment, 
Waggoner fired back, "You think that's funny?"


So why did they laugh? This gets to the heart of why the FTC 
Spam Forum was bad news for the legitimate email marketer. Many 
anti-spam zealots do not believe that there is such a thing as 
"legitimate commercial email!"

TERM: Double Opt-in - Requires a subscriber to request a 
subscription and then to verify the intention to subscribe 
by following a defined procedure.

Even if publishers who now require "double opt-in" 
subscriptions were to ask for and keep records of "quadruple 
opt-in" verifications from their subscribers, a lot of 
anti-spam zealots would still cry foul! 

Why else would the terms *s*u*b*s*c*r*i*b*e* and *u*n*s*u*b-
*s*c*r*i*b*e* be included in many spam filters with the implied 
suggestion that email that carries this terminology MUST be 
spam?

It does no good to be able to prove double opt-in to the ISP's 
and the anti-spam zealots. Most presuppose that any commercial 
email is likely to be spam.

The ISP's are honestly concerned with the cost of bandwidth in 
association with email. Estimates have put the monthly cost of 
spam to be $3 per month per email account. Thus, if ISP's can 
reduce or eliminate spam, they can reduce their costs and 
improve their profits. 

ISP's who oppose all commercial email --- you know, the kind 
who laugh at the suggestion that spam filters hurt "legitimate 
email marketers" --- think one step further. They believe that 
if they can eliminate all commercial email, then they can 
significantly reduce their costs and significantly improve 
their profits!

At every level of the Internet food-chain, people are concerned 
with their own profits. The anti-spam zealots, who had the most 
pronounced representation at the FTC spam forum, will profit 
handsomely from the loss of commercial email... Or will they? 

Without commercial enterprise on the Internet, will people 
still be flocking to the web in the numbers they are today?

Recognizing the fact that the filtering industry is destroying 
email commerce, people like Anne P. Mitchell of Habeas, Inc. have
come running to the assistance of online commercial businesses. 
For a price, Habeas will "whitelist" your publication or email 
--- or should I say for a hefty price, Habeas will "whitelist" 
your email! 

TERM: Whitelist - This is a kind of filter that suggests that 
any email that meets the whitelist definitions will be 
pre-verified (under the terms of the whitelist company) 
as legitimate commercial email.

Habeas purports to offer a "value-added service" that will help 
your outgoing email reach its destination unobstructed. Habeas 
also purports its fees to be very reasonable --- up to $500 per 
mailing list per year. Is $500 really a "reasonable" price? I 
don't think so.


As consumers, we always think of the "spam war" as something 
that addresses the unsolicited email from the p*o*r*n industry, 
the nutritional products industry, and other fly-by-night 
scammers. 

Yet, when the people who are speaking on our behalf in the 
halls of government think of the "spam war", they are thinking 
of something else entirely. In fact, they are attempting to 
remove the cash from the pockets of not only the spammers, but 
also the small business people who employ legitimate email 
marketing techniques.

Why do so many anti-spam zealots target all commercial email? 
Simple, they want to put the cash where THEY think it belongs 
--- into their own pockets!