I believe the scope statement indicates that ASRG will pursue legal issues
related to spam only to the extent they affect, support, or constrain
anti-spam technology (and not otherwise). That's as it should be. This is
not primarily about law, but if new laws are needed or would be useful to
back up a technological solution, they should be identified. A lot of
legislators would be happy to be able to introduce a bill or at least cast a
vote against spam. In the U.S. Congress, there was overwhelming support for
sharp limits on telemarketing, and I'm sure there are similar feelings about
spam.
----Original Message Follows----
From: Hadmut Danisch <hadmut(_at_)danisch(_dot_)de>
To: Doug Phillips <gr8rdane(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com>
CC: jmr(_at_)jmrtech(_dot_)com, Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice ....
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:16:20 -0800
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 12:42:04PM -0500, Doug Phillips wrote:
> The law will need to evolve, just as Internet architecture needs to
> evolve.
I agree. But unfortunately, that's far beyond the scope, the
power, and the timeline of such a research group.
Hadmut
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg