Home | Other Samples | Capabilities

JMB Communications Writing Sample -- Magazine Article

That Sour Taste You Get from "SPAM"

Not everyone relishes the fact that the name of a famous luncheon meat has been applied to the practice of junk e-mail and junk Usenet postings. It’s particularly irksome to the folks at J. C. Hormel, the packing company in Minnesota that developed the popular food back in the late 1930s.

Hormel is no slouch when it comes to technology, either: if you check out www.SPAM.com, you’ll find Hormel’s "SPAMTASTIC" website which starts with this morsel:

SPAM’s Website is a SPAM product catalog which offers SPAM lunchmeat fans SPAM hats, T-shirts, neckties, bowling shirts, a SPAM gift pack (including several varieties of the luncheon meat plus a cookbook, carving board, and oven mitt), lapel pins, earrings, a die-cast SPAM truck replica, coffee mugs, a SPAM phone card, and – while supplies last – even SPAM boxer shorts.

Despite the website’s acknowledgment of internet "spamming", Hormel as a company takes a dim view of the appropriation of its trademark for use as the colloquial term for junk e-mail and junk Usenet postings. Comments Hormel’s V. Allan Kreici: "Certainly we don’t appreciate the terminology SPAMMING as it is being used on the Internet. We want people to understand SPAM luncheon meat is a high-quality food product. The slang mass e-mails can be disparaging to our product and we prefer to see a positive spin regarding one of the nation’s best-known icon foods." 

Nonetheless, the term SPAM sticks to unsolicited bulk e-mail and Usenet postings. . . .

Your parents and grandparents remember it well: SPAM®, a popular canned lunchmeat used by servicemen at war, brought home to widespread popularity throughout the USA.

Unfortunately, today’s SPAM isn’t the famous lunchmeat. It’s not food at all, but it certainly is causing a lot of people a severe degree of indigestion. . . .

"SPAM" is the term widely applied to junk email -- the kind that promises instant health, sex appeal, or $50,000 in three months without effort.

Based on information from Bruce Spielbauer (via the Internet) and others:

"Nobody can say definitively, although many have tried to take the credit. The prevailing theory . . . is that the term derives from a sketch which used to be performed by the comedy troupe known as Monty Python. In the sketch, people are trying to hold a conversation in a restaurant. The restaurant menu has SPAM in each dish: egg and SPAM; egg, sausage, and SPAM; egg, bacon, and SPAM.... As the attempt to converse continues, other people are chanting in the background: ‘SPAM! SPAM! SPAM! SPAM!’

"This background noise gets louder until it becomes annoying, and it finally becomes so aggravating that no conversation can be held. Thus, ‘SPAM’ has taken over.

"As to who first borrowed the term and used it for unsolicited or undesired communication . . . most believe that it originated on one of the Usenet Newsgroups, referring not to e-mail, but to off-topic nonsense, commercial and otherwise, which was posted and wasted people’s time (and, indirectly, money).

In any event, it’s clear that commercial entities and special interest groups saw the Usenet groups as an ideal audience for market-focused messages, and someone started practicing what soon became known as "spamming" – sending identical messages to hundreds of Usenet groups.

Regardless of how it started, the practice has become pervasive. With the explosive growth of home PCs in the last ten years, the emergence of the World Wide Web as a commercial showcase, and the vast increases in the numbers of people involved in PC-based telecommuting and in sales force automation – all of which involve the use of electronic mail – it was inevitable that promoters of every conceivable description would want to get their messages out via e-mail as well, pleasurably (to recipients) or otherwise.

Today, virtually everything is promoted in hundreds of junk e-mails sent to millions of "cybercitizens" daily. And we do mean everything – anti-wrinkle cream, sexual potency concoctions, beef, get-rich-quick schemes (mostly home businesses which are PC-based), "free" software, ".gifs" by mail, vitamins, and unabashed raunch. Ads usually ask you to call an 800 number or respond by e-mail (usually with your credit card information). Rarely, you’re asked to write to an address using snail mail.

Some SPAM recipients find junk e-mail amusing, others delete it upon receipt, and others despise it. When Internet access was charged for by the hour, subscriber rage at spamming was widespread: every minute "wasted" reading, removing, or complaining about the "SPAMS" cost the recipient money.

At the time, most online services and Internet Service Providers seemed ambivalent. America Online, the biggest online service, was the biggest target of spammers but actually gained the most from them when it charged by the hour, since its millions of users had to spend millions of minutes removing unwanted junk mail. Millions of minutes translated into AOL revenue.

SPAM was driving a lot of AOL members crazy, however, and their ire caught the ear of AOL’s highly visible CEO, Steve Case. Ostensibly responding to customer demand, the company blocked mail from several "offending" domains and was quickly sued by Cyberpromo, one of the biggest "offenders."

"Cyber Promotions, Inc.," Cyberpromo’s official name, had been e-mailing millions of pieces of unsolicited "junk" e-mail to AOL users. When AOL blocked all Cyberpromo e-mail, Cyberpromo filed suit in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Although he initially issued a temporary restraining order barring AOL from blocking Cyberpromo, Judge Charles Weiner ultimately found that there were no disputes over the facts of the case and held that AOL "as a wholly private actor" is not required to open its network to Cyberpromo, and is within its rights to block Cyberpromo e-mail.

Judge Weiner said there are other ways for Cyberpromo to reach the same audience, including regular mail, which his decision did not restrict.

"AOL is very aggressive in our attempts to deal with SPAM because it is one of the top member complaints," spokesperson Trisha Primrose told TIAC. "We believe in putting technology in our member’s hands. So we have (user) tools that block SPAM automatically (PreferredMail) and allow a member to customize their mailbox to block certain email or all email. Our main concern is with our member’s experience online. SPAM impacts that experience negatively. Telemarketers don’t call you collect, direct mailers don’t send you mail COD. Spammers have no accountability to the consumer and free ride on the system."

One of AOL’s problems with Cyberpromo was that it used fictitious and unregistered domain addresses to circumvent AOL’s preferred mail filtering system. In his order, Judge Weiner also ordered Cyberpromo and its president, Sanford Wallace, to stop that practice as well.

AOL President Steve Case added, "We believe the time has come to take proactive measures against these sites to protect the interests of our members by limiting this annoying and inappropriate use of the medium."

Among other sites blocked by AOL are answerme.com, netfree.com and servint.com.

AOL’s "PreferredMail" filtering system blocks bulk email from Cyber Promotions and other sites which its members select. Users who want to receive the mail can turn the filter off.

Cyberpromo filed a motion alleging that the PreferredMail filter violates federal anti-trust laws.

CompuServe, the online service which started online e-mail in 1969, in May of ’97 petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to enter an order accepting a consent agreement which would prohibit Cyber Promotions from sending any unsolicited e-mail to its subscribers. The order also required Cyber Promotions to prohibit its customers from sending unsolicited e-mail to CompuServe subscribers.

CompuServe members choosing to receive Cyber Promotions e-mail would be allowed to do so. Cyber Promotions would be permitted to purchase advertising on CompuServe describing its services. CompuServe spokesperson Gail Whitcomb said, "We have received hundreds of complaints about unsolicited bulk e-mail. We are working through the courts with other online services including AOL and EarthLink to eliminate it. We will give our subscribers a choice – if they want to receive unsolicited e-mail, they can. But if they don’t want it, we want them to have that freedom also."

Meanwhile, a privately held Internet company is forging an agreement under which any registered voter can block Internet email from Cyberpromo.

San Francisco-based Aristotle’s president, John Phillips, said his company has electronic mailboxes for America’s 138 million registered voters. "We’re bringing the lion into the den," Phillips reportedly said. "Ultimately, his (Wallace’s) customers are not all that interested in sending mail to people who get pissed off."

Aristotle’s deal allows any registered U.S. voter to request blocking through www.aristotle.org for up to five electronic mail addresses, free. Aristotle says that 1.2 million e-mail addresses have already registered for its SPAM blocking service.

For its part, TIAC believes that its members, most of whom are experienced Internet users, have a right to receive all mail addressed to them without ISP censorship. "That has always been our policy, and we don’t intend to change it," a spokesperson said. "Our customers don’t all like spamming, but what they’ve made clear to us is that they like censorship even less."

Most online service and ISP customers simply regard spamming as a nuisance, although many try to "flame" the sender. "Flaming" is sending an inflammatory response to the sender in an attempt to both vent anger and stop further mail.

However, bulk e-mail services are one of the products frequently offered in bulk e-mail itself, and one of the features of many of the bulk mailing packages is "anti-flame" protection – which means nasty email notes from disgruntled recipients are routinely ignored.

Not all recipients believe bulk unsolicited e-mail is a bad thing, either.

Witness this excerpt from a recent Internet pro/con SPAM dialog:

Anti-SPAM Chatter: Repeat after me: ADVERTISING IS NOT FREE SPEECH. Then: PRIVATE SYSTEMS DON’T HAVE TO CARRY FREE SPEECH. Private systems are just that: PRIVATE!

If I am paying for it with my money as a part of my business then I get to decide what is it used for. Not you. Not the government. No one but me. The internet is PRIVATE PROPERTY. Try and put up an advertising billboard on someone’s front lawn without their permission and see what

kind of reception you get. . . .

Pro-SPAM Chatter: The whole point of e-mail is (like

regular mail) to allow anyone in the world to easily communicate with you. That’s why it has an address, and presumably one you publicize so that people can easily communicate with you. Same thing with your telephone number.

If you get the politicos to pass a law making it illegal to send unsolicited email, all you will do is kill the medium -- bad laws are *always* abused, and this one would be bad indeed.

You want to have a private "friends only" e-mailbox? You can have it right now, it’s pretty simple. If you don’t know how to set it up, I’d be happy to show you for $40/hour. . . .

Anti-SPAM Chatter: I think all it would take are a few high-profile prosecutions of spammers and the practice would end. Nobody likes junk mail. I bet there’s a state attorney general and/or U.S. attorney who would love to make a name for

themselves by attacking SPAM.

Pro-SPAM Chatter: Advertising is protected under the First Amendment. Go fish.

Anti-SPAM Chatter: Wrong. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nowhere in there does it say anything about any ISP being forced to carry ANY traffic by ANY entity for ANY reason. An ISP is not Congress. An ISP is free to refuse traffic for any reason whatsoever, even something as base as ‘I just don’t feel like it.’

Now, if CONGRESS were to make a law telling an ISP what it could or could not pass, THAT would be a violation of the First Amendment (as the recent CDA debacle so clearly demonstrates).

The published word is only protected from GOVERNMENT censorship. The private sector is free to censor to its heart’s content. (End Internet excerpt.)

All of this has not been lost on Congress. Late in May, Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) proposed banning SPAM in his proposed "Netizens Protection Act of 1997. His bill would stop Internet get-rich-quick schemes, unproved medical remedies and other solicitations.

"This bill will help people not only with the nuisance of SPAM but the costs as well," he said. The bill would allow those who want SPAM to continue to receive it, he said. The bill would represent an extension of the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act which banned unsolicited junk faxes. It would continue to allow e-mail sent by friends and between or among existing business relationships.

If you find unsolicited e-mail offensive, here is what you should do to combat it:

• Find out who sent it. The "received from" line in the headers may tell you, but be aware that many spammers routinely camouflage their real addresses specifically to stop people from learning the origin of their e-mail.
• Complain by sending a note to "abuse@domainname.com." Most ISPs use that address to monitor this type of call. Some also use "spam@"; when in doubt, forward the entire offending e-mail including all its headers to "postmaster@domainname.com."
• Ask the mailer to remove you. Most e-mailers offer a "remove" option but you often have to read the whole message before you can find it. (Hitting "Reply" usually doesn’t work.) Some spammers ignore "Remove" instructions -- they simply accept your mail as confirmation that your address isn’t bogus.
• Send a copy to us. Again, forward the entire piece of offensive mail INCLUDING HEADERS to abuse@tiac.net.
• Get help if you’re a victim. By all means call or e-mail TIAC if you are the victim of a scam (support@tiac.net), but also contact your credit card company’s fraud department if you’ve used a credit card.
• Use your own good judgement. If it looks too good to be true, it isn’t true.

Websites often collect email addresses. They offer prizes or games for which you must register (by giving information including email addresses) to be eligible. A well-publicized competition might yield thousands of email addressees which can be sold and used repeatedly.

Some websites send "cookies" – another information gathering device. If your browser alerts you that the site you’re browsing wants to send a cookie, click NO to avoid it.

To avoid getting on e-mail lists in the first place:

1. Avoid websites where you are required to register with your e-mail address. It’s possible that the site will put you on a list – and sell it.
2. Consider using more than one e-mail address. When you surf the web, use an e-mail address that’s not intended to receive any important mail. Any e-mail that goes in it, ignore: the e-mail winds up in a black hole.
3. Give your e-mail address ONLY to people who have a legitimate need for it. For example, if you put your e-mail address on your business card, avoid dropping your card in countless baskets at trade shows – almost inevitably your mailbox will be flooded.

Copyright, ©, JMB Communications, 2001, 1999, 1997  (written 8/97)