Re: [Asrg] Anti-spam laws do work, FYI. There's proof.

[Seth Breidbart <sethb at panix.com>]

"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker at verisign.com> wrote:

>>   Did the recipient consent to receive it?  If yes, not
>> spam.  If no, spam.

> Unwanted and indiscriminate.

Huh?

> I think that I have a right to send anything that the sender wants
> to receive.

That's arguable (assuming you mean that the _receiver_ wants to
receive, otherwise it's nonsense).

> Since that is not a decidable set I think it is reasonable
> to widen the definition of what I may send to include anything that
> I might reasonably believe that the recipient wants to receive.

That's not reasonable.  It doesn't matter what you believe.  What
matters is what the recipient consented to.  (If you want a free pass
for sending something that the recipient wants but didn't actually
consent to, fine: it won't generate any complaints.)

If you ever guess wrong, then you're a spammer.

I think you have the right to take anything that the owner wants you
to take.  Since that's not decidable either, if you widened the
definition in the same way, you'd become a thief if you ever guessed
wrong.

Seth

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