sounds like a good place to start (harassment law and restraining
orders) but keep in mind that this type of legislation has been
abused- it's very easy to accuse someone of harassment, even if they
are innocent. what it amounts to is social blacklisting and i'd hate
to see something like that happen to email. i favor a more passive
approach, control can be a good thing but wouldn't it be better if
there was a way to eliminate the possibility of a harassment
situation to begin with?
harassment:
To irritate or torment persistently.
To wear out; exhaust.
To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.
haha! if that isn't spam then i don't know what is! good call Kee.
At 8:33 PM -0800 3/29/03, Brad Templeton wrote:
So because consent would be incredibly difficult to define, and
it's a bad idea
to bring it into the spam definition, I respectfully submit that other
courses should be followed.
I think it follows from this argument that the appropriate
definition of spam is very simple. Harassment. That's why I asked
a while back on this list whether harassment law and restraining
orders (both of which are based to a certain degree on the
perceptions of the recipient) might not be the best model.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg