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