CircleID

The point about private funding of law enforcement efforts is well made. If it takes the financial backing of the DMA to enforce the law, then who is going to enforce the law where DMA members are concerned? I don't like where that train of thought leads.

I pretty much agree with all you say about the DMA.  (Here it is Thursday and I keep searching for the news conference that was supposed to happen today, at which the anti-spam actions claimed to have been taken by the government are to be announced.  So far, nothing.  Plenty on the anti-file-sharing actions, but that's it.)

Do note that the DMA may have had a far smaller part in the effort than that for which they jumped the gun to credit themselves with. 

Those who don't want the DMA getting the credit for anti-spam action needn't sit on their hands: they can take wickedly effective action themselves (most of them):

http://www.proxypot.org/

Tell the FTC what you find, tell the appropriate ISP, tell the press.  You can outpower the DMA, alone.

"Spammers always define spam as something they don't do".

This is what is happening here. There's an effort to redefine corporate-backed, CAN-SPAM-compliant spam as ham.

The fact that most spam is amateurish, offensive, and fraudulent makes it all the easier to make this distinction.

The DMA lobbies against the private right of action in spam legislation.

http://www.the-dma.org/cgi/dispnewsstand?article=1848