|
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 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 > > > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|