Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs
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
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
You can also bet that ISPs interfering with the delivery of even junk spams is going to be a tough thing in court. I think the spammers will have plenty of legal precedent to remove the ISPs blocking. Ultimately, only the intended recipient can do the blocking. Dory
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
participants (3)
-
Dory Ethan Leifer -
jmbrown＠ihighway.net -
owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US