This message cannot be considered spam

Every once in a while I get spam, usually from a foreign country, that contains the (in)famous Murkowski statement.

The information contained in this e-mail transmission is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended only for the addressee(s) stated above. If you are not an addressee, any use, dissemination, distribution, publication, or copying of the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Under Bill 1618 Title III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress this mail cannot be considered Spam as long as we include Contact Information and a method to be removed from our mailing list.

There’s so much here that is wrong I almost don’t even know where to start.
So let’s start with the bill.
dreaming-of-being-a-law
S.1618 is short for “Senate bill 1618.” It was actually passed by the 103rd Congress. There was a companion bill H.R. 4176 that was never passed by the House.
Now, those of us who grew up watching SchoolHouse Rock know that before a bill becomes a law it must pass both houses of Congress and then go to the President to be signed into a law. Those of us who had a government class also know there are differences between the two bills passed they must be resolved in committee and then voted on again before being sent to the President.
S1618 was one of the “unlucky” bills, it died in committee. But spammers jumped on the opportunity to tell recipients that we couldn’t think their blasts were spam so they created the “Murk” text that I copied above.
Of course, most of the spam I get claiming I cannot consider it spam doesn’t actually comply with the just-a-bill called S.1618. Much like most of the spam I get claiming to be CAN SPAM compliant isn’t. If you have to tell me you’re complying with a law, chances are you’re lying to me.
Disclaimers about sharing emails are on pretty shaky ground. In some very, very narrowly defined contexts this type of disclaimer may have some level of legal standing. But for the most part they’re just a waste of electrons. This is even more true when the mail isn’t being sent to a specific person, but is blasted out to addresses abandoned a decade ago.
To recap.

  • Senders can’t stop receivers from publishing emails.
  • There is no “addressee” stated above. The address you mailed is a spamtrap.
  • I can consider any email I want spam.
  • S.1618 is a bill that passed the Senate in the previous millennium and never went anywhere.
  • S.1618 never said mail couldn’t be considered spam.
  • Even if S.1618 said mail could be considered spam, this message doesn’t comply with the law.

The use of a “murk disclaimer” were so common, and the lack disclaimers for opt-in mail meant that this phrasing became content that a lot of senders used for their filtering decisions. I expect there are still filters out there triggering on the disclaimer. Those filters are, sadly, still catching spam.

Related Posts

Canada announces CASL regulation start date

This morning Industry Canada published its final regulations regarding the implementation of the Canadian Anti-Spam Law. Email related provisions of the law will take effect June 1, 2014.
What does this mean? It means that anyone sending mail from Canada or anyone sending mail that is accessed in Canada is required to have explicit opt-in consent for sending that mail, with a few exceptions. These exceptions include commercial electronic messages that are:

Read More

Canada publishes updated proposed regulations for CASL

Based on initial feedback collected in 2011, updated regulations for CASL have been published by the Industry Canada. Interested stakeholders have until February 4, 2013 to comment on the proposed regulations.
Edit: to identify correct Canadian Govt Agency (Thanks, Neil!)

Read More

What's up with CASL?

Al has a guest post from Kevin Huxham of CakeMail talking about how a majority of people surveyed don’t know anything about the Canadian Anti-Spam Legislation.
I have to admit, I’ve not talked about CASL very much here as I’ve been waiting for the implementation and rulemaking. Unfortunately, the implementation date has been pushed back again and again and it doesn’t look like the law will be in effect until 2013.
CASL takes an incredibly narrow look at permission. It prohibits any commercial mail sent without the recipient’s consent to email addresses, social networking accounts and phones (SMS). Not only that, it also prohibits adddress harvesting and installation of computer programs without consent of the owner of the computer.
This law affects all email sent to a Canadian citizens and does allow for private right of action.
I know that a lot of companies that market in Canada have been working out permission issues before the law takes effect. They are also looking at how to comply with the permission requirements for addresses collected after the law goes into effect.
One of the challenges of this law is going to be identifying what addresses are covered. In some cases senders will have physical addresses, but they’re not going to have physical addresses for all addresses. And that may mean that CASL will actually impact more that just Canadian residents.
 
 

Read More