REALTIME BLACKHOLE
LIST
DMA to Internet: SHUT UP
AND EAT YOUR SPAM
Table of Contents:
On January 10, 2000, the DMA launched its
solution to the problem of unsolicited broadcast e-mail: an opt-out list
in which consumers will be allowed to state their preference not to
receive UBE and which DMA members will be asked to honor. Although the DMA
touts its new list as a benefit to consumers, the DMA's approach is
profoundly hostile to consumers as well as the Internet
infrastructure.
The DMA does not intend to allow ISPs to
control the use of their own private property, and the DMA is refusing to
allow ISPs to opt-out all of its customers from DMA promotional mailings.
Even though the DMA intends for ISPs and their customers to absorb the
costs of UBE, the DMA marketing plan seeks ISP support for a plan which
harms them for the benefit of direct marketers.
We must make certain that the DMA does not
succeed in gaining support for its bogus list which was conceived in
fraud. If you are an ISP owner or manager, please read the background
information below so you will be prepared when the DMA seeks your
endorsement. If you are customer of an ISP, please let your ISP know about
this web page and encourage them to withhold support for the DMA's bogus
list which will only ensure the distribution of
more UBE.
Please also consider signing the petition
at http://MadAboutSpam.org and joining the boycott against DMA members who
believe spam is a legitimate advertising method.
The Direct
Marketing Association
(DMA) is a leading proponent of unsolicited broadcast e-mail ("UBE" or
"spam") as an advertising method. With the power of its generous campaign
contributions, the DMA has succeeded in getting sweetheart legislation
introduced in Congress and thwarting the progress of any meaningful
anti-abuse legislation at either the federal or state
level.
Everything changed, however, when Rodney
Joffe and American Computer Group (ACG) launched SAFEeps, the first and only global opt-out service to
receive any support from members of the Internet
community.
The notion of a global opt-out list was
itself controversial, and many refused to support SAFEeps for this reason. All previous attempts at
developing global opt-out lists had proven to be ineffective in reducing
e-mail abuse. Moreover, the notion of an opt-out list rested on a
presumption that, rather than seeking permission to use the resources of
its targets, advertisers could direct as much promotional material as they
wanted to mailboxes of their choice until told to
stop.
Almost all e-mailbox owners reject this
idea, and the experts are in agreement that such a scheme would have a
catastrophic impact on the e-mail delivery system and
e-commerce.
Nevertheless, SAFEeps was able to gather support due to several factors
making it different from previous proposals:
- ISPs, corporations, educational
institutions and other organizations would be able to pre-emptively
opt-out all of their users;
- SAFEeps, with broad backing by the Internet community and
direct marketers, actually stood some chance of success of significantly
reducing spam levels;
- Rodney, with his close ties to both the
DMA and the direct marketing industry and the Internet and anti-spam
communities, could gain the trust of both groups and thus establish the
critical mass necessary to make a global opt-out list
successful.
Despite grave misgivings, many members of
the Internet community who had been adamantly opposed to opt-out lists
decided to support SAFEeps in the spirit of cooperation and compromise.
SAFEeps was the last best hope to make a global opt-out
list work. If it failed, it would settle permanently the issue of the
viability of opt-out lists. If it succeeded, owners of private property
would be able to control the use of their resources as they saw fit, and
individuals could still receive all of the promotional materials in which
they were interested. SAFEeps represented a fair and effective balance of the
interests of marketers, consumers and the owners of network
equipment.
SAFEeps was an immediate hit. Within a week of its
introduction, more than 40 million e-mail addresses were shielded by
SAFEeps, with Hotmail and America
OnLine among the first to
register.
Suddenly, however, the DMA was ready to
talk after ignoring the Internet community for years. Its leadership was
frightened by the success of SAFEeps, as well as their recent failure to get S. 1618
passed by the House. DMA representatives approached Rodney and asked him
to put together a small group of experts on e-mail
abuse.
This meeting took place at DMA headquarters
in Washington DC on 12/5/98. One of the participants reported on the
meeting in a newsgroup article (available here), and a press release was also issued. The meeting was covered not only
by online news sources such as Wired News, C|Net and ZDnet, but by The New York Times as well.
Even though Rodney succeeded in putting
together SAFEeps in less than two months, the DMA took more than a
year to develop a similar but much less capable system. Rodney had offered
to license SAFEeps to the DMA for $1, but the DMA elected to hire its
own contractor for its SAFEeps alternative, e-MPS.
The reasons for the DMA's rejection of
Rodney's generous offer became clear when the features of the DMA's
alternative to SAFEeps were finally unveiled, and it became obvious that
the DMA had been dealing in bad faith all along. The length of time was
merely a stalling tactic as the DMA developed a system lacking any of the
benefits of SAFEeps and including all of the negatives of previous
global opt-out lists.
The DMA's e-MPS represents a complete abandonment of the agreements
made by the DMA leadership a year previously. Another participant in the
1998 meeting reported in a newsgroup article (available here) about how the DMA had reneged on every substantive
agreement to which it had committed.
The DMA leadership had agreed to honor the
rules of the forum pertaining to unsolicited bulk e-mail, and to promote
the use of opt-in marketing practices by its members. But in his 10/25/99
keynote address at the DMA's 82nd Annual Conference and Exhibition,
Bob Weintzen didn't even mention opt-in except to denounce
it:
- [W]e also feel that most of those who
push for an opt-in-only regime have very little understanding of the
incredibly negative impact it would have on the future use of e-mail as
a marketing tool.
http://www.the-dma.org/texis/scripts/news/newspaper/ displayArticle.html/+/3814ad287#4
The DMA also reneged on its promise to
support a global opt-out list which would include the right of ISPs and
other domains to pre-emptively opt-out all of its users.
Jerry Cerasale made it clear in his 11/3/99 testimony to the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade and Consumer Protection that only individuals would be permitted to
opt-out of promotional mailings by the DMA's e-MPS.
After the DMA's duplicity was exposed, it
was reported in a well-researched Salon article. The DMA's Vice President of Ethics and Consumer
Affairs, Pat Faley, who was present at the meeting, asserts that the
DMA's e-MPS fulfilled the commitments it had made at the
summit. Faley also deprecated the significance of the meeting as
nothing more than an exchange of positions rather than an attempt to
hammer out a workable compromise which was the stated objective of the
summit.
Faley's lies and knowing advocacy of theft perfectly
illustrate DMA "ethics" and its commitment to the consumer
interest.
MAPSSM has
obtained a copy of the DMA's marketing plan for its bogus
e-MPS and makes it
available for public review here. Note that the DMA explicitly states that ISPs will
not be permitted to opt out its customers, and all other domains must
first obtain the DMA's permission before opting out. Domain opt-out
evidently will not be available when e-MPS is launched in January, nor
does the DMA offer any information on how long Internet users will be
required to wait before domain opt-out is implemented.
A key part of the DMA public relations plan
is to "get the philosophical and actual PR support of several major -- or
multiple minor -- ISPs by the launch date". We must ensure that the DMA
does not succeed in deceiving any major or minor ISPs into believing that
the DMA advances the interests of anyone other than its members --
and at the expense of major and minor ISPs
alike!
The DMA has confirmed that Internet service
providers will not be permitted to register their domains with e-MPS;
see http://www.directmag.com/Magazines/DirectNewsline/ Archive/1999112901.htm. In this article, Pat
Faley, again demonstrating
the DMA's hypocritical notion of ethics, asserts that ISPs do not have the
right to control their own private property. Faley claims that since ISPs already spend considerable
amounts of money on filtering unwelcome e-mail messages, "ISPs don't need
an e-mail preference service." This self-interested opinion is not
supported by any facts whatsoever, and, indeed, is controverted by a
considerable body of evidence of which the DMA is well
aware.
The DMA leadership is being called to task
for its cluelessness and the missed opportunity to move forward in a
cooperative rather than adversarial manner.
See Dana Blankenhorn's
first article and his follow-up. Rodney Joffe, quoted in the Salon article, has also published strong criticisms of the DMA
leadership in an open letter to DM News and copied to
news.admin.net-abuse.email. Rodney's letter is available at
deja.com and here.
Ian Oxman, founder of the opt-in based bulk
e-mail service ChooseYourMail, also had harsh criticisms for e-MPS and the
DMA leadership in his essay "How the DMA Supports
Spammers". MAPSSM is pleased that some members of the DMA understand
the critical issues at stake here, and we hope they will convince the DMA
leadership to abandon their foolhardy plan.
The direct marketing industry has an
atrocious record of self regulation. All self-regulatory efforts thus far
have served the interests of direct marketers exclusively to the detriment
of consumers. Read more about the sham of direct marketing industry
self-regulation here. It is our hope that other organizations can learn
from the past so they will not be condemned to repeat it when it comes to
the DMA and the direct marketing industry.
By Nick
Nicholas, last revised:
Feb. 28, 2000.
|