On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 11:33:12AM -0400, Bob Wyman wrote
While we see all sorts of attempts to pass legislation making spam
illegal, I haven't yet seen anyone discussing legislation requiring that
specific anti-spam mechanisms or protocols be deployed. The rules of the
Internet, unlike those of the telephony system, the airwaves, or our
highways, have been largely voluntary. However, the Internet has become
just as much a "common" good as are these other communications channels.
We're effectively looking at nationalization/confiscation of private
property. This is similar to what has happened in many jurisdictions
with shopping malls. They're technically private property, but they
seem to have acquired some special status as "public places".
Given the tremendous backlash against spam that we've seen lately, I
wouldn't be surprised if we began to see proposals requiring that
specific mechanisms be used to combat it. Just as new laws restricting
civil liberties have been "collateral damage" of the anti-terrorism
effort, new laws reducing the voluntary nature of Internet standards may
be "collateral damage" of the anti-spam effort.
I greatly *FEAR* "anti-spam" legislation. My fears are that marketing
lobbies will make large "campaign contributions" to "the best
legislators that money can buy", resulting in...
a) a very narrow definition of spam ("that which we do not do")
b) "must-carry" clauses regarding certain types of email
c) outlawing, or "regulating" into uselessness, of DNSbls
--
Walter Dnes <waltdnes(_at_)waltdnes(_dot_)org>
Email users are divided into two classes;
1) Those who have effective spam-blocking
2) Those who wish they did
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg