Households are just as ready to sign up for a Do Not Spam list as they were for the federal Do Not Call registry, but even with a new federal "Can-Spam" law set to take effect on New Year's Day, the registry is still months away.

State laws, some already in place, will take precedence until weaker federal rules are fully enforced.

Last week, just days after President Bush signed the "Can-Spam (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing) Act," U.S. Senate Bill 877, to outlaw unsolicited commercial e-mail -- or UCE, better known as spam -- a nationwide study found that 83 percent of those polled were very or extremely likely to register with a federal Do Not Spam registry once it's available.

Earlier this year, another study found that only pornographic spam was more annoying than mortgage spam, followed by investment spam, and real estate spam.

(The National Association of Realtors offers an extensive online "Field Guide to Reducing Spam E-Mail.")

According to Ferris Research Inc., a San Francisco consulting group, unsolicited e-mail cost the 2003 economy $10 billion in lost productivity and in the extra equipment, software and workers necessary to combat the e-mail plague.

Federal and state officials say the new laws will help them step up legal attacks mounted against the so-called "Spam Cartel," a network of about 200 spam operators federal officials say is responsible for about 90 percent of all electronic junk mail. Spam comprises at least 40 percent of all e-mail and as such is more of a scourge than paper junk mail, unwanted faxes and telephoned solicitations combined.

New York state's attorney general recently joined Microsoft in a multi-million dollar lawsuit aimed at dismantling one of the nation's largest e-mail marketing firms.

It's no wonder than that when Tarrytown, NY-based market researcher Synovate surveyed 1,000 adults it found 83 percent of them likely to sign up with a Do Not Spam registry.

"E-mail sent to addresses on the list will have to comply with certain standards and regulations leading to the end of spam as we know it," said Andrew Davidson, a vice president with Synovate.

Federal law deemed too weak

Some critics aren't so sure. Federal law will eventually preempt the laws of some three dozens states, some of them even stronger than federal law and enacted because spammers are already violating laws with impunity.

Anti-spam groups, including the online volunteer ad hoc group, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail (CAUCE), say the federal law doesn't truly outlaw spam and gives spammers one last shot at mailboxes.

"This law does not stop a single spam from being sent. It only makes that spam slightly more truthful. It also gives a federal stamp of approval for every legitimate marketer in the U.S. to start using unsolicited e-mail as a marketing tool ... we have no faith that this law will significantly reduce the amount of spam that American Internet users receive," says Scott Hazen Mueller, CAUCE's chairman.

The Synovate study says those who use e-mail get an average 155 unsolicited e-mails in their personal or work e-mail accounts each week and 20 percent of them receive 200 or more. Some e-mailers receive that much spam every day.

Those receiving 100-200 e-mails per week were just as likely to register as those receiving 20-50 e-mails suggesting widespread popularity once the list is introduced. Women and older adults found the prospect of a list most appealing, the study found.

"Eighty-eight percent of females are extremely or very likely to register compared to 78 percent of males, despite the fact that males receive more spam than females," Davidson said.

Under the federal law, also effective Jan. 1, 2004, spammers have 120 days to comply, but it could take longer -- six months to a year -- before the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) constructs a national Do Not Email registry and begins full enforcement.

With rewards for whistle blowers and the threat of multi-million dollar fines and imprisonment, the federal law will also outlaw using false or misleading transmission information, using deceptive subject headings, and using automated methods (among them, so-called "e-mail harvesting") of registering multiple e-mail accounts for spamming.

Spammers also will be required to include in their digital junk mail their physical address and a way to allow those they spam to opt out of future mailings.

Tougher state laws already in place

Among tougher laws, California's requires all spammers sending e-mail to California's residents and all California-based spammers sending spam anywhere to obtain "opt-in" permission before they hit the "send" button.

That means spammers must get recipients' permission before sending spam. Until there is a registry to preempt spam, federal law can only enforce consumers' right to tell spammers to stop, but only after spam shows up.

Until all the regulations are in place, the new federal spam law is expected to face the same resistance telemarketers mounted over the Do Not Call federal law, which bans most unwanted telemarketing offers -- sales pitches conducted by telephone -- without the recipient's permission. More than 50 million phone numbers have been registered with the Do Not Call registry, according to the FTC.

Along with the cost to jobs and commerce, telemarketers argued the Do Not Call registry violated their constitutional right to free speech, an argument successfully countered by consumer advocates and others who said the right to privacy holds sway.

In addition to seeking help from the appropriate state law, those who get spammed can complain to the Federal Trade Commission at uce@ftc.gov or seek help from a host of agencies and groups fighting spam.