* 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?
No, the cause some people (not the spammers) an enormous amount of grief.
1) What can the FTC do to discipline an ISP?
Levy large fines after several years of delay.
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?
Of course.
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)?
Oh, you don't even have to work that hard. If you have to have filtering anyway, you can expect many people to have the filter auto-send a remove messge in response to all spam, so a spammer signs up for a dial-up account, sends 100,000 spams, gets back 25,000 remove responses, of which 24,900 fall on the floor because he's blown his e-mail quota. I said this bill had problems. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47