North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs
> > > * 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, [email protected], 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|