SAN FRANCISCO -- If there's one heartening thing about the unsolicited e-mail problem, it's that there are smart people working to solve it.
This isn't one of those hopeless-seeming scourges where interested parties drag their feet in finding a solution -- global warming, say. When it comes to spam, there's broad consensus -- among consumers, ISPs and some lawmakers -- that something has to be done about it. And, fortunately, some things are being done.
But that doesn't mean all is bright on the anti-spam front. It's clear from the opening day of Spamcon -- the anti-spam conference occurring here this week -- that there are dedicated spam-fighters out in the world. But it's also clear that they're fighting a losing battle, trying to plug a river with their fingertips.
The experts here talk about ways to slightly slow the rate of increase in spam, or about making examples of big-time spammers through punishment, or about trying to tell new Internet users why spamming isn't a wise thing to do. Few talk about completely eradicating unsolicited e-mail -- that's just too difficult.
To get an idea of how hard it is to go after spammers, look at the thankless labors of Jennifer Mandigo, a staff attorney at the Federal Trade Commission who calls herself a "foot-soldier in the spam wars."
The FTC is the nation's largest consumer protection agency, but that doesn't mean it's anywhere near the size it ought to be to effectively fight spam, and being in the thick of the federal government doesn't make it very nimble, either. Moreover, there's no federal law banning spam -- so to go after spammers, the FTC usually has to act on less-specific sets of laws that simply ban "unfair" or "deceptive" practices that can be proven to cause "substantial injury" to consumers.
"That's a set of requirements you can drive a truck through," Mandigo said. "Where we usually trip is trying to prove substantial injury."
Now, some unsolicited e-mail messages are clearly deceptive and cause injury, and Mandigo and others at the FTC have had some success going after their senders.
There was a 1999 case in which some people received a message that said, "Thank you for your payment of $400. Your order is being processed." It also gave a phone number for people to call to ask about this mysterious payment.
"It turns out that the number was a 767 number," Mandigo explained. "That's Dominica, in the West Indies. And these people called about the $400 bill and they were connected to an adult entertainment line there, and they waited and waited and waited on the line. And at the end of the month they get a $300 phone bill -- and the senders had a deal with the phone company there, so that they got a cut of these calls."
The FTC was able to catch those guys, as well as some people pushing weight-loss scams and work-at-home pyramid schemes.
But what about e-mail that isn't deceptive or unfair? Say, an e-mail that just provides some links to a website, where the only real problem is that it's annoying, and that you've got a hundred copies of it.
That isn't within the FTC's jurisdiction, Mandigo said. Is it in anyone's?
"Federally, probably not," she sighed.
The U.S. House and the Senate are working on legislation to curb spam, but it isn't yet clear how effective it would be, or even if the laws will get passed. On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee scaled back a junk e-mail bill that had been designed to allow consumers to sue companies that ignore requests to remove addresses from their mailing lists.
"These provisions (to sue companies) are disproportionate to the harm or damage caused by spam," said Wisconsin Republican James Sensenbrenner, according to Reuters.
Still, given all these setbacks, Mandigo and the FTC still press on. "We still try to do stuff against spam," she said.
Ted Gavin, a consultant at Nachman Hays Consulting and another foot-soldier in the spam wars, has written an IETF document to teach Internet users how to advertise responsibly on the Internet, but during a Thursday speech he acknowledged that the document would probably have little effect on most spammers.
"You are always going to have a fringe element who is going to do what they want and not listen to protocols," he said. "There is no way, there is no policy, there is no law that will stop them."
He sighed, and then added, bleakly, "I can't see any way to deal with people who just choose to take an other-than-legitimate path toward marketing."
Of course, there are some sophisticated technical ways to get at spam, and companies that stop spam at the ISP level -- such as Brightmail, one of the conference's sponsors -- have been successful in that business. Brightmail blocks spam for ISPs as large as Earthlink and AT&T. Gary Hermansen, the company's CEO, said that it will soon move into the anti-wireless spam business.
But while this may prevent spam from getting to users, it doesn't really stop the spam problem. ISPs are still paying a lot to deal with these messages -- and they're passing the costs on to subscribers. But the networks are still becoming clogged.
Perhaps, in time, the spammers will realize their folly -- they'll see that their messages aren't getting through and they'll quit it. But after a day of Spamcon, it seems just a little Pollyannaish to hope for something like that anytime soon.
