|
|
Drowning In A Sea Of Spam
15 January 2003
"Go from Rags to Riches." "Lose Weight and
Look Great." "Having Trouble Satisfying Women?" These are
just three of the 150 spam e-mail message headers received by this writer
within five days.
Spam (or junk mail) - defined as "unsolicited, automated e-mail,
often of a commercial nature" by Dictionary.com - is reaching epidemic
proportions as missives touting everything from pornography to cut price
car insurance are hitting individual and corporate inboxes with increasing
voracity.
Technology research firm Gartner estimates that 11m spam e-mails are sent
every day. According to anti-spam technology firm Brightmail, 38 per cent
of all e-mail received today is junk mail, compared to 8 per cent a year
ago.
The growth of spam is creating a number of repercussions. Most obviously,
home and business computer users are becoming increasingly intolerant
of junk e-mail. "The volume of spam has increased four-fold over
the past year and complaints have risen ten-fold," says Jonathan
Penn, a director in IT advisory firm Giga Information Group's security
research department.
From a business perspective, spam is more than just an inconvenience.
"At best, spam is annoying; at worst, it's objectionable and a real
threat to productivity and resources," says Steve Cullen, senior
vice president, consumer and client product delivery at Internet security
company Symantec. Lost productivity is certainly an issue for companies,
especially for those that do not impose rigorous e-mail and website filtering
policies. In a recent Symantec study, close to a quarter of the 1,000
people surveyed spent more than 20 minutes every day dealing with unsolicited
e-mail.
Donal Casey, an e-mail security expert with the IT security company Integralis,
believes that companies should take a hard-line approach to fight lost
productivity and network security issues resulting from spam. "It
is crucial thatcompanies clamp down on e-mail and internet use making
it clear precisely what the IT infrastructure may and may not be used
for, clearly flagging the dangers that each outlawed practice may pose,"
says Mr Casey.
Raising employee awareness about spam is one thing, but because sophisticated
spammers are now able to outwit basic filtering and detection using forged
headers and disguised identities, companies are also adopting anti-spam
technologies to help them control unsolicited e-mail before it reaches
employee desktops.
The number of vendors in this area has grown recently, with a battalion
of anti-spam solutions on offer. With more venture capital funding being
channelled into these products, Giga's Mr Penn expects the anti-spam market
to evolve rapidly over the next 18 months.
Beyond implementing technological solutions and educating employees about
corporate e-mail policies, anti-spam legislation is being developed worldwide
to help outlaw junk mail.
In the EU, a 2000 Directive obliges providers of internet services to
inform users of their contact details. There is no all-encompassing anti-spam
law in the UK, but the Data Protection Act of 1998 generally prohibits
the misuse of personal data and gives individuals the right to prevent
processing of their data for direct marketing purposes. More recent laws,
the 2002 Electronic Commerce Regulations, state that unsolicited commercial
communication sent via e-mail must be clearly and unambiguously identifiable.
Meanwhile, in the US, 26 states have undertaken anti-spamming legislative
measures. In California, for instance, senders of spam are asked to identify
their communications by appending "ADV:" in the subject line
and must discontinue sending unsolicited e-mail to individual users upon
request. There is currently no legislation at Federal level, although
the Federal Trade Commission monitors spammers who appear to be running
scams such as selling non-existent products or services.
Some companies are winning legal battles against spammers. In the US,
telecommunications company Verizon successfully sued e-mail marketing
company Additional Benefits in Virginia in March 2001 for flooding the
inboxes of its subscribers with unsolicited commercial e-mail advertising
diet pills, online gambling, and other offers. In the UK, where, according
to Keith Krasny, an associate with the international law firm Morrison
and Foerster, a spam case has yet to reach the English courts, Virgin
Net Ltd, the ISP arm of Virgin, launched a suit against one of its customers
for sending nearly 250,000 junk e-mails through his e-mail account. The
suit was settled out of court in Virgin's favour.
Despite these successes, legislation is only of limited use in the fight
against spam. "Legislating against spam is like legislating against
smoking," said Don Taylor, CEO of internet security firm, Clearswift.
"Spam will continue whether legislation is there or not." One
of the main problems with legislation is that a global network like the
internet requires global laws to govern it. "The fact that a spammer
may be violating the laws of different countries doesn't necessarily mean
they can easily be stopped," says Mr Krasny.
As anti-spam measures abound, a question remains about how targeted messages
from legitimate marketers can find their way through the blockade of anti-spam
systems to the receiver. "Anti-spam legislators are pushing the limits,"
said Al DiGuido, CEO of internet marketing firm Bigfoot Interactive. "As
a result, reputable marketers are losing out."
However, in one sense, the anti-spam campaign has made marketers more
careful to target their messages to suit particular users. By only sending
solicited e-mail with well-designed headers and by vigilantly obeying
"opt-in" and "opt-out" requests from users, many marketers
are seeing positive results.
According to Bigfoot's vice president of marketing, Michael Della Penna,
anticipated and permission-based marketing has helped created a 200 per
cent increase in sell-though. Mr Della Penna says: "Without the backdrop
of spam, the marketer would not have been forced to look at content and
relevancy of meaning."
© Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2003 .
|
|