[81368] in Cypherpunks
Re: Responses to "Spam costs and questions" (long)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Igor Chudov @ home)
Sat Jun 7 01:20:20 1997
To: devnull@manifold.algebra.com
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 23:24:28 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <BFTw8D32w165w@bwalk.dm.com> from "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" at Jun 6, 97 11:41:10 pm
From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
Reply-To: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> writes:
>
> > -Declan
> >
> > (Who thinks that no consensual speech should be banned by the government.
>
> If you set up your mailbox to accept e-mail promiscuously from anyone,
> then anything sent to it is "consentual".
>
> > I can, however, see a common law argument for spam as trespass after
> > repeated cease-and-desist notes are sent.)
>
> The onus is on the recipient to filter out what they don't want (or to
> "filter in" only what they want, which is how I think we'll end up). Such
> filtering takes less time+effort than "repeated cease-and-desist notes".
Is there any justification for a law that would require senders to make
filtering easier, e.g., by attaching a [COMMERCIAL] tag to all UCEs.
- Igor.
