From: Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
...
VS> Yes, but the number of distinct streams of spam seen in the Internet
VS> by DCC servers decreased iin the first days after news of the AOL and
VS> Symantec lawsuits broke.
It is easy to have a point effect and difficult to have a strategic
effect.
Yes, but strategic effects consist of a lot of point effects. Previous
point effects such as those from the Flowers.com case are why the vast
majority of spam sender addresses are either obviously legitimate or
point to free mail providers.
I believe that legal efforts will have two useful, strategic effects:
1. They will produce some standardized language; that is, we will come
to have terminology that is reasonably precise and is used reasonably
consistently.
It's ironic to have legislators doing the work of the IETF/IRTF, but
I doubt this mailing list will be able to contribute more than a list
that says "Fraud & Crime" is "Nigerian 419," "eBay password/credit
card theft," and "payPal password/credit card theft."
2. Marginal spammers will behave more consistently and, perhaps, more
acceptably. Marginal spammers operate within rules, although they might
be irritating.
What will NOT be affected are international spammers and rogue spammers.
My own experience shows this to be a very, very large group.
Could you quantify that? As far as I can see, international and rogue
spammers are incredibly few. I suspect fewer than 50 account for
almost all of the spam in the last week that knowingly violates
currently laws or what spammers think are legal norms and fair play.
Most of the nominally international spam in my traps is clearly
U.S. based. The FTC's new effort against the marriedbutloney
spammer is a classic example of the limits of trying to appear to
be an international rogue while living in the U.S.
There will always be spam from international rogues, but I think
it is reasonable to hope that it will be as much of a problem as
viruses and worms are for people who care enough to do anything to
avoid those problems. When was the last time one of your systems
was significantly affected by a virus or worm?
The negative effect of legislation will probably be excessive
expectations, followed by increased frustration. More seriously there
is likely to be an unexpected and undesireable spill-over to valid
email. This is what usually happens when we pass laws about content but
do not have a clear, strong, simple means of distinguishing "acceptable"
from "unacceptable".
Those problems are likely. This mailing list could make a major
contribution to minimizeing them by defining "spam" and "implicit
consent." An official IETF definition of "spam" would let legislators
concentrate on writing laws against spam instead of defining mail
protocols.
However, defining implicit consent and spam would require ignoring
special interests and other minority voices. We all know that contrary
to some claims, the consensus definition of "spam" is UBE.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg