A letter to the editor sent to Ken Magill of Direct News / Magilla Marketing
* Reposted with Permission from Neil's Personal Blog.

Ken,

Thank-you for your April 1 column 'Anonymous Group Takes Aim at Spamhaus', it is no joke.

Consider for a moment what the circumstance for the email world would be, were the people behind Online Marketing Advocacy Group to be successful in putting The Spamhaus Project out of business.

Literally hundreds of millions of user inboxes would be left unprotected. Spam would flow, unabated, into them. How then, would users react? I imagine a goodly portion of them would simply give up on the medium. We have already seen evidence of users either migrating to social networking closed gardens or dumping email altogether, how much more tempting will these alternates be in such a world?

ISPs would scramble to put other measures into place, using DNSBLs far more draconian those of Spamhaus.

Legitimate marketers will be severely affected, with a far, far lessened ability to get their messages delivered, or actually seen, amidst the blizzard of spam.

Is a listing on Spamhaus onerous enough to sue the company out of existence? I imagine it must be for some of the highest degree of frustration to be listed at Spamhaus. However, in both my personal and professional life I have never experienced anything but professionalism and ease of use with their products. The clients I have encountered with Spamhaus listings who made the appropriate changes were quickly delisted, plain and simple as that.

I expect of the tens of thousands of legitimate marketers who are not listed at present, some may have had some unfortunate intersection with Spamhaus, and had to change their practices. At present, they are humming along happily. To them I ask - do you like getting your mail to the inbox of your subscribers? Then do not sit on your hands, and allow this pernicious, short-sighted initiative to move forward an inch without a challenge:

Contribute to Spamhaus in any way possible; they surely have a legal defense fund to fight against this spurious attack, pony up some money!

Strictly follow industry guidelines - the Messaging Anti-abuse Working Group has several available through their website (including a terrific new paper on email authentication, check it out - all these documents have been developed with the full participation of senders, receivers, CAUCE and Spamhaus associates.

Agitate in industry associations like the DMA and ESPC to very publicly voice and undertake initiatives against the actions of the cowardly Online Marketing Advocacy Group and indeed for The Spamhaus Project. This may cause some internal pain to these groups. It is my understanding that some of their members, in fact, very vocal members are the main supporters of this attack-dog group. Take a stance, divest yourselves of these sectors of the industry that do nobody any good, far least, the ever-loving recipient of email

Be forewarned, if you don't take an active stance now, today, and these vile back-room people are successful, you will doubtlessly wish you had done so. It will hurt your business, and in these business climes, I'd say that in and of itself is a very brave stance indeed. Good luck with that.

--
Neil Schwartzman
Executive Director
CAUCE: The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email

The following speech was prepared with the intention of using portions of it during the FTC Spam Summit, but CAUCE was not given the opportunity to participate due to time constraints.

My name is Neil Schwartzman. Beyond — as I noted yesterday — representing Return Path Inc. here at this conference, I have a second life, as it were, as the Executive Director of CAUCE in North America. CAUCE is the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email, a consumers' rights advocacy group.

I am here today to question. Yesterday we heard how the tenor of the discussion about spam became more mature. How, in the period of time that has elapsed since the last summit, things have developed as an industry.

That may be true, but I question if the discussion at hand here this week is truly a big tent effort.

I see few anti-spammers here. I see only one blacklist operator, and no filtering service providers here. I see no consumer organizations here. Heck, I don't see but one spammer on the panels. I didn't see anyone challenge him during his attempts to cast himself as a legitimate business man, no-one mentioned his attempts to bribe staff at at least one large receiving site to accept his mail, or his efforts to open a school for spammers. Where is former FTC Commissioner Orson Swindle and his "couple of public hangings" when you need him, and them?

For some time now I have contended that Confirmed Opt-in, 'COI' is dead, or at the very least on life support. It certainly is not a major factor in the continued relation between sender and receiver; that relies far more heavily on the ongoing and historical reputation of the mailer and the mail stream. Proof of permission doesn't scale; end-users complain all the time, but it is rare if not impossible for a receiving site to request proof when an end-user complains, then the receiver complains to the sender, and the sender says that permission was actually in place. Much more commonly, the sender unsubscribes the address and moves on, permission or not, since the subscriber doesn't want the mail any more.

But then, I recently had two eye-opening experiencee as to exactly why Confirmed Opt-in is critical to the email whole equation.

As you probably know, CAUCE recently had some major news, we announced it here on our website and we also did a mailing to our membership lists. One email resulted in someone challenging us on their subscription – the subscriber instisted he had never signed up to our lists and was pretty upset.

We pulled out his Confirmed, ‘Double’ Opt-in record, showed him the date and time he asked to be subscribed, and the time and date he clicked through on the confirmation mail.

CAUCE North America Debuts - New anti-spam advocacy group combines CAUCE Canada and CAUCE US

Montreal and Los Angeles, June 06, 2007 -- Neil Schwartzman, chair of CAUCE Canada, and Scott Hazen Mueller, chair of CAUCE U.S., today announced the formation and launch of CAUCE North America to build upon the work of their previously separate organizations.

CAUCE North America is now the premiere anti-spam advocacy group, representing the interests of the millions of Internet users in North America. The combined group will work towards equitable solutions for the original threat posed by spam since the 20th century, and Spam 2.0, the 21st-century blended threat posed by the merging of spam, viruses, phishing and malware.

"When we launched the original CAUCE, back in 1997," said Scott Hazen Mueller, founder of CAUCE U.S. and now President of CAUCE North America, "spam was an isolated problem and it was seen by many as unimportant. Now, spam is part of a multi-pronged assault by various criminal organizations attacking the very basis of trust on the Internet. If this threat is not met soon, users will continue to migrate away from the Internet for their commercial needs."

press contact: press@cauce.org

Tel . +1 303 800 6345

I was quoted 'above the fold' in a recent Information Week article, talking about spam-distributed botnets being a vector for real-world terrorist attacks. A few minutes later a piece on the .ORG TLD being under attack crossed the wires.

In the interests of clarity, I do work for Return Path but like this consumer study quite well anyway - it basically says that consumers know what they are doing when they hit the 'This is Spam' button at freemail sites. For a long time there has been a faint hope held by marketers that their stuff isn't being regarded as spam, those hopes seem dashed now. Go consumers!