Misunderstanding The New Spam Law And Spammers

Ramblings

from the let's-try-that-again... dept

There are plenty of reasons to think that the new CAN-SPAM law that was signed this week is terrible. We’ve been pointing a number of reasons why this law is likely to make things worse, not better. However, reading the following article, by someone who is apparently an “analyst” makes me wonder about the writer’s analytical skills. He suggests that the law is bad, because spam is good. He says that occasionally, you get something good in the spam, and this law will stop people from getting things they might want. Except, apparently, this analyst hasn’t read the law, because it actually allows spamming. The only thing it forbids is using false headers to spam. Anyway, if you wanted to know who buys from spam, apparently, it’s this guy – because, occasionally, he sees something worthwhile in the spam he gets. Second, this guy claims that spammers don’t want to spam people who don’t want their spam, and would be happy with a smaller list of interested parties. That’s been proven wrong time and time again. Spammers, these days, are making money based on the size of their lists – which they sell to others. Therefore, they do want more names. These aren’t sophisticated marketers we’re talking about who understand why targeted marketing makes more sense than untargeted blasting. What they do understand is that when selling their email lists or their ability to spam, the bigger numbers they can show, the more money they believe they’ll make.