The From Line

Email marketers have spent four years figuring out and complying with the CAN SPAM regulation of 2003 for their U.S. recipients.  But, international laws also apply and some may have more reach than domestic laws. For example, the EU Privacy Directive specifies that you have a required opt-in for campaigns. 

The best strategy is to understand the make up of your mailing database and educate your marketing team on the international laws.

Visit www.spamlaws.com for more information on international SPAM laws.

E-ssentials is brought to you by Gold Lasso Email Marketing

The Federal Trade Commission in a 5 to 0 vote decided to smack Yes Mail with a $50K fine for violating the CAN SPAM Act all due to a technical oversight.  I really feel bad for Yes Mail because no software company is without technical glitches.  Unfortunately, in this industry, technical mishaps comes with confrontation from the federal government.  The next step for the FTC is to chase after clients of email service providers.  Just make sure your email service provider dots their i's and crosses their t's because you'll be the next one to enter the ring.

Read more here:
http://www.dmnews.com/cms/dm-news/legal-privacy/38892.html

The Federal CAN SPAM Act “S.877” has been in effect for a little more than two months. The purpose of this legislation was to reduce the amount of spam reaching our inboxes by setting forth national standards for the use and transmission of commercial email. Has the CAN SPAM Act helped to ‘can’ spam? Well, there’s no shortage of opinions on this topic, and the debate rages on.

Whether or not the CAN-SPAM Act has gone far enough to reduce inbox clutter or frighten the spammers, almost everyone agrees that it has left many legitimate marketers confused and concerned. And for good reason. Since the inception of this legislation, the leading technology, web service and Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) have been in a race to come up with their own ‘solutions’ to the spam problem. You can’t pick up an article on spam without reading about filtering software, authentication and detection programs, desktop spam blockers, suppression lists, white lists, black lists, certifications and digital signatures.

Earlier this month, Microsoft unveiled technical specifications for an email authentication system similar to caller ID for email. Rather than using simple filtering technology, this system would seek to identify ‘good’ email, and segregate everything else. Many companies have already experienced the frustration of having their legitimate email messages to their clients/customers blocked by overeager filtering technology, and overzealous IT departments.

At the same time, Internet and marketing firms are lobbying for the adoption of a system for ranking mailers based on reputation. Lawyers and consultants are working to convince businesses to retain them to insure spam compliance, and online publishers have flooded the markets with books on ‘dealing with CAN-SPAM’. So, where does that leave the legitimate marketer? Is it time to abandon email as a marketing and communications tool? The answer is a resounding no.

Email is still one of the most effective, reliable and cost efficient manners to communicate with current customers and prospects. Remember, the legislation was enacted to reduce spam, penalize spammers, and set forth best practices for email marketing. It was not intended to stop legitimate marketers from using email to communicate with their willing audience. Unfortunately, the immediate result of the legislation is that marketers have to work harder and smarter to ensure that their messages are successfully delivered to their intended audience. And, while marketers are working harder, spammers continue to find unorthodox ways of getting their messages delivered.

It’s time to take the bull by the horns. Legitimate marketers can remain ‘spam compliant’ by following common sense rules. Be honest. Don’t try to hide or disguise who you are, or the purpose, subject or content of your message. Take people off your list immediately when they opt out. Even one message arriving after an opt-out may be enough for you to be reported as a spammer. Address complaints promptly and professionally. Remember, anyone even suspecting you of spamming them, won’t hesitate to report you to the ISP, and most ISPs have made spam reporting as simple as clicking a button.

If you are concerned about whether your company has the time or human resources necessary to manage the various aspects of CAN-SPAM compliance, it may be worth considering an outside email service provider. An email service provider’s lifeblood is in maintaining a relationship with the ISPs to insure that their clients’ email messages aren’t filtered, blocked or blacklisted. In addition, a reputable email service provider will routinely monitor their customers’ messages for compliance, provide automatic opt-outs and suppressions, and handle complaints promptly. The costs of using an email service provider should be weighed against the time and resources required by your company’s IT department to address these types of ongoing data management issues.

The email landscape will undoubtedly continue to evolve in the months and years to come based on this newly enacted legislation, and the response of consumers and ISP’s. Legitimate marketers will have to work harder to insure deliverability, high open rates, and less blocking. Gold Lasso is committed to staying ahead of email marketing trends, and will continue to make the necessary changes to our system and procedures to help our clients remain in full compliance with email standards and laws.

You can barely read two lines in any marketing publication these days without ‘spam’ articles and commentary jumping out at you like a sore thumb. But what’s all the buzz about?

The definition of ‘spam’ is purposely vague because everybody has their own definition. As it currently stands, spam is in the eye of the beholder. Some spammers argue that spam is not any different than traditional junk mail, but there is one undeniable difference... cost. The cost of sending junk mail through conventional means is very high, including postage costs paid by the sender. The cost of sending spam is minimal and most of the costs are paid by people other than the sender.

While the monetary costs of emailing are small, there are other non-monetary costs that junk emailers face; the risk of getting kicked off of their ISP or webhost, plus the risk of tarnishing their name within the legitimate marketing community.

As a result of the increasing volume of spam, fraudulent emails have become a widespread nuisance. According to the Federal Trade Commission and its actions against spam, a fraudulent email is spam containing deceptive content, misused identity or a misleading subject line. It is this fraudulent spam that has created the chaos within the marketing industry. Marketing organizations, are now taking a stand against spam – to protect consumers and participation in online commerce.

With the flooding of news and information on pending spam legislation, it is extremely important to understand the content and implications of the bills pending legislation in 2003-2004.

Anti-Spam Act of 2003

This bill, currently the most popular, would require all commercial e-mail messages to be identified as such (but not with a standard label, except for sexually explicit messages), and to include the sender's physical street address and an opt-out mechanism; messages relating to a specific transaction and consented to by the recipient would be exempt from those requirements. The bill would prohibit commercial e-mail messages with false or misleading message headers or misleading subject lines, and it would be illegal to send commercial e-mail messages to addresses generated by an automated dictionary attack. State laws that restrict the sending of commercial e-mail, regulate opt-out procedures, or require subject-line labels would be pre-empted; laws that merely regulate falsification of message headers would remain in effect.

Click here to review the bill http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108hr2515.html

CAN-SPAM Act of 2003

The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act

(CAN-SPAM) would require unsolicited commercial e-mail messages to be labeled (though not necessarily by a standard method) and to include opt-out instructions and the sender's physical address. The law would prohibit the use of deceptive subject lines and false headers in such messages. It would pre-empt any state laws that prohibit unsolicited commercial e-mail outright, but would not affect the majority of state spam laws.

Click here to review the bill http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html

Ban on Deceptive Unsolicited Bulk Electronic Mail Act of 2003

It would prohibit the inclusion of false information in message headers in unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail. It also would require senders of unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail to include opt-out instructions and honor opt-out requests, and would prohibit them from harvesting e-mail addresses of potential recipients from web pages and other sources.

Click here to review the bill http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s1052.html

Computer Owners' Bill of Rights

The Computer Owners' Bill of Rights would require the Federal Trade Commission to establish a "do-not-email" registry of addresses of persons and entities who do not wish to receive unsolicited commercial e-mail messages. The FTC would be empowered to impose civil penalties upon those who send unsolicited commercial e-mail to addresses listed on the registry.

Click here to review the bill http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s563.html

Criminal Spam Act of 2003

The Criminal Spam Act of 2003 would prohibit unauthorized or deceptive use of a third party's computer for relaying bulk commercial e-mail messages. It also prohibits the use of false header information in bulk commercial messages, and regulates the use of multiple e-mail accounts or domain names for purposes of sending such messages. The law would apply only to quantities of more than 100 messages within 24 hours, or 1000 within 30 days, or 10,000 within one year.

Click here to review the bill http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s1293.html

REDUCE Spam Act of 2003

Under The Restrict and Eliminate the Delivery of Unsolicited Commercial Electronic (REDUCE) Mail or Spam Act of 2003, unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail messages would be required to include a valid reply address and opt-out instructions, and a label ("ADV:" or "ADV:ADLT", or other recognized standard identification). These requirements would apply to messages sent in the same or similar form to 1,000 or more e-mail addresses within a two-day period. In addition, false or misleading headers and deceptive subject lines would be prohibited in all unsolicited commercial e-mail messages, whether or not sent in bulk.

Click here to review the bill http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108hr1933.html

Reduction in Distribution of Spam Act of 2003

This bill would require all commercial e-mail messages to be identified as such (but not with a standard label, except for unsolicited sexually explicit messages), and to include the sender's physical address and an opt-out mechanism. It would prohibit the use of false or misleading headers in commercial messages. State laws that prohibit unsolicited commercial e-mail, regulate opt-out procedures, or require subject-line labels would be pre-empted; laws that merely regulate falsification of message headers would remain in effect.

Click here to review the bill http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108hr2214.html

Stop Pornography and Abusive Marketing Act

This bill would establish a national "no-spam" registry, and make it unlawful to send unsolicited commercial messages to addresses on that list. The list would be administered by the FTC, using fees paid by marketers for access to the list. The FTC would be empowered to prohibit explicit commercial messages to minors even if they were not on the list. All unsolicited commercial messages would be required to use a label ("ADV:") at the beginning of the subject line, except those sent in compliance with an FTC-approved self-regulatory program. It would be illegal to send any commercial e-mail in violation of an Internet service provider's policies, or with a false or misleading subject line or message header, or to harvested addresses; all commercial messages would be required to include the sender's physical address.

Click here to review the bill http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s1231.html

Wireless Telephone Spam Protection Act

The Wireless Telephone Spam Protection Act would prohibit the use of wireless messaging systems to send unsolicited advertisements.

Click here to review the bill http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108hr122.html

For a detailed list of spam laws by state, visit www.spamlaws.com. Do not hesitate to voice your concerns or opinions to your state representative. To contact your state representative, go to www.house.gov and search by zip code.

Danielle Ashery is Marketing Director at Gold Lasso,Inc. She can be reached by telephone at 301-990-9857 or via email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Visit Gold Lasso at http://www.goldlasso.com.