North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: identity theft != spam

  • From: Bill Woodcock
  • Date: Fri May 16 01:13:20 2003

      On Thu, 15 May 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
    > what is wrong with this picture?
    > this exemplifies the corporate and legislative attempt to confuse
    > spam == uce with forgery.  if they can make the latter the issue,
    > this leaves the way completely clear for unsolicited commercial
    > email from the corporate sector which now fills our post boxes with
    > ground trees.

Well, the issues are perhaps a little more complex than you're portraying
them.  J.I. and I spent the better part of two years working on the
California law, which has a similar provision.

>From a customer's point of view, spam is anything they didn't want to

>From an ISP's point of view, spam is anything that was sent or
received without having been paid for.

>From a politician's point of view, spam is non-political UCE.

These are almost wholly incompatible views.

One thing that everybody can get together on is that if someone sends spam
(for _any_ of those values of "spam") using a forged source address,
that's bad.

Thus, it's easy to get a provision through which puts heavy penalties on
source-address forgery, even if nobody can agree on what spam itself is.