Re: [Asrg] How about we do something about spam?

[Douglas Otis <dotis at mail-abuse.org>]

On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 07:23 -0500, Daniel Feenberg wrote:

> 
> While I agree that this provision represents an amazing lack of spine on 
> the part of the congress, it isn't as though I get any spam that conforms 
> to all three of these identifiers. In fact, no more than a couple of 
> percent include even one (usually (i)). So this provision does not yet 
> represent a barrier to anti-spam activity. No doubt if the FTC or DOJ took 
> some action against US based spammers, they would make hast to conform to 
> the law, but that hasn't happened yet. And nothing in the law interferes 
> with private action to reject messages, spam or not.

The mere fact that a computer is spamming is not automatically a
violation of the law that would permit an order to stop.  There are some
spammers giving the appearance of following these guidelines, in some
cases even making it difficult for providers with poor AUP to stop their
traffic.  Expecting private individuals to ignore this traffic
represents a fundamental lack of international cooperation.

This act also removes an ability for private citizens to seek
compensation.  Without official action of enforcement, nothing happens.
As there is seldom any financial incentive to take action, spam
officially has been made into something that everyone is expected to
endure.  Attempting to enforce the act will just make it more difficult
recognize legitimate messages, but spamming will continue.  So why
bother?

Marking messages, just as with the Do Not Spam list, is another concept
that appears to have been dropped from the act as well.

-Doug


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