|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 11:28:40 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Becker <bbecker@iconn.net> To: Scott Hazen Mueller <zorch@orbit.hooked.net> cc: nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <199710292055.MAA26621@orbit.hooked.net> On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Scott Hazen Mueller wrote: > address verification may or may not be enough. There is no statute or case > law that makes the owner of an address legally liable for the mail emitting > from there - this could be an issue for claims of forgery and the like. Scott -- I believe that the legal ins and outs are mostly moot. The scope of spam is global while most law is national or local. To use less-than-global law to regulate something of a global nature, you would need customs services that would prevent spam from being smuggled in from other jurisdictions where spam is legal. I believe that the only thing you can do with courts is to use the civil courts to discourage spammers. You sue the bastards, but only after you get abused. > *possibly* be the infrastructure for building the second. However, limiting > anonymity likely wouldn't provide a strong deterrent by itself, since spammers > could still run through multiple non-anonymous dialup accounts over the > lifetime of a spam campaign. The basic concepts about email have to change. The present system is hopelessly out of date. > The scheme has generally not been sketched in much further detail because the > deployment issues typically overwhelm any discussion. One way this could happen is with large content providers. They must see spammers the same way that we do -- As parasites. If AOL and CIS et al wanted a UCE-free protocol, i'm sure that Qualcom and Netscape et al would support it. Somebody let me know when beta testing starts. Bill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |