[9542] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue May 27 17:07:06 1997
From: owen@DeLong.SJ.CA.US (Owen DeLong)
To: jmbrown@ihighway.net (John M. Brown)
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 13:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: owen@DeLong.SJ.CA.US, johnl@iecc.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19970524092852.00c39a64@mailhost.ihighway.net> from "John M. Brown" at May 24, 97 02:28:52 am
The definition of "real email address" is a vague thing indeed... For
example, I have many "real email addresses". I have many more addresses
I could legitimately claim are real addresses that are, in fact, routed
to /dev/null. Why heck, the use of the <> construct could be considered
a real email address. I realize the bill addresses this to a certain
extent, but not enough.
The other problem is that any spammer outside the US can fry any ISP inside
the US with this law.
Owen
> Yes that would be a cinical view :) One thing that I like is it requires
> the sender to use their REAL address, and flag the message as a SPAM. It
> would also need to cover the unauthorized use of MY mail relay server.
> Thus the SPAMMER would have to use there server and NOT bounce off of me.
> To do so would be considered a theft of service.
>
> jmbrown
>
> >Seems to me it's even worse than this. Seems to me that the bill, while
> >well intentioned, could be used by Spammers to say "See, it's OK to SPAM,
> >it says so here. We put the word advertisement on the subject line. See,
> >if people don't want to see it, the law says their ISP filters it. We're
> >doing exactly what the law says we should. It condones SPAM."
> >
> >Or did I miss something about this law?
> >
> >Owen
> >
> >
>
>
