[9515] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Deepak Jain)
Sat May 24 14:37:56 1997
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 14:32:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Deepak Jain <deepak@jain.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@DeLong.SJ.CA.US>
cc: John R Levine <johnl@iecc.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199705240759.AAA12994@dixon.DeLong.SJ.CA.US>
> > * The FTC can discipline misbehaving ISPs.
> > * Various penalties for unsigned ads, for ISPs that don't provide
> > filtering, for spammers who continue to send ads after receiving a remove.
>
Don't these two lines cause everyone a little bit of grief?
1) What can the FTC do to discipline an ISP?
2) Why should ISPs be required to filter? Wouldn't it make sense that
customers would decide if they want to make a purchase based on *if*
filtering were available?
The other two [unsigned ads] and [spamming after a remove] are good. It
doesn't address the most serious problem.
By a real email address, what do we mean? One that doesn't bounce? One
that actually goes back to the spammer? What if every 48hrs he/she
rotates email addresses so the spammer can ignore the remove requests
because (simply put) it is coming from a different spammer (and *still*
send untagged email)?
-Deepak.
