RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - US Congress to vote on federal anti-spam bill

["Denny Figuerres" <denny@figuerres.com>]

Funny.... This goes back to some of my first comments on this list....

IMHO laws to stop/reduce/lessen SPAM without *Accountablity* and the removal
of *forged* email headers is like trying to use a paper towel as an
umbrella.... It may for for a short time but in the end is *DOOMED*

I would urge anyone who speaks to or communicates with the legal side to get
them to see that spam is mostly a "Side effect" of an email system that
allows email headers to be fake.

Can anyone tell me what good a US law will be in stoping a SPAM sender who
is say in sweeden that sends fake headers to a mail server in korea and then
to a mail server in say russia and then to the usa?
If the email can not be traced back to the sender ..... And crosses 2 or
more international borders in the process then who do you go after? At what
cost? In which contry? Based on who's legal system? 

This is one of the reasons why I originaly mentioned a model somewhat like
international mail.

Unless we have some form of UN/Global legaly sactioned body the spamers will
just keep sending us more junk but now with new disclaimers about how they
are complying with the law based on ......

To quote an old Issac Asimov book title: "Against stupidity, the gods
themselves contend in vain." 
Or another way: "Against SPAM, the congressmen themselves contend in vain." 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 2:22 PM
> To: ASRG
> Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - US Congress to vote on 
> federal anti-spam bill
> 
> See the following article:
> 
> http://news.com.com/2100-1024_3-5110622.html
> 
> ----------------------
> "Congress has reached an agreement on antispam legislation 
> and could vote on it as early as Friday afternoon, a move 
> that would end more than six years of failed attempts to 
> enact a federal law restricting unsolicited commercial e-mail."
> 
> "The broad outline of the legislation, however, shows that it 
> is a modest compromise and not as far-reaching as some 
> antispam advocates had urged. It establishes a "do not spam" 
> registry to be run by the Federal Trade Commission, makes it 
> a crime punishable by up to five years in prison to send 
> fraudulent spam, and imposes an "opt out" standard instead of 
> a more stringent "opt in" requirement. Unsolicited bulk 
> e-mail from nonprofit groups, politicians, and charities 
> would not be regulated.
> 
> Still unclear is whether the bill would pre-empt more 
> restrictive state laws such as one enacted in September by 
> California. That law establishes an opt-in standard and is 
> scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1."
> ----------------------
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
> 


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg