At 02:51 PM 3/17/03 -0800, Hadmut Danisch wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:36:44PM -0800, John Rumpelein wrote:
> > Specifically, I am thinking after the RCPT-TO: you could post
> > "RECEIVER allows this message to be delivered under the following
> > conditions:
>
> I'm no lawyer, but it is hard to understand how a message which no human
> will ever see could be considered binding on the people who operate the
> company.
Even if it did, of what use could it be? Do you want to
sue every single sender of spam? How do you sue the sender if
you don't know his identity? How do you sue a spammer
sending from a random country?
In which language would you like to post the message? What if
the spammer claims to not understand english?
What should I post? German? English? Turkish?
If I receive spam from US, which law should apply on the agreement?
German law? US law?
Let's step back and recognize that there are at least two possible distinct
technology research and design goals:
1. Create technology that, by itself and independent of any legal norm or
law, is (a) effective in stopping spam, (b) scalable, and (c) likely
actually to get widely deployed.
2. Create technology that can be used in conjunction with existing or
proposed legal norms or laws to reduce or stop spam.
Obviously it would be wonderful if this RG can accomplish goal 1, and I
assume there will be lots of effort toward that goal. But I for one think
that a robust solution to spam will likely require existing or new laws,
and so I think there is value in considering goal 2 as well, even if the
technology itself would not be self-enforcing.
John
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg