I'm a Canadian, so I write from a foreign perspective. This law will
probably affect me just like S1618 did.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 11:53:36AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote
3) I am still an advocate of having the Postal Inspectorate, the wing
of the justice dept that investigates mail frauds take responsibility
for investigating spam frauds. The FTC has been doing some useful
work here, but it is a civil agency and cannot apply for criminal
sanctions. The mail inspectorate can and does.
One worrisome aspect of this approach is that it begins the
"slippery slope" towards "email == electronic version of postal mail".
This would eventually result in spamfilters being declared illegal, just
like any other interference with postal mail.
4) Legislative action is not a substitute for fixing the email
protocols. We need to consider how we can change the email protocols
to make enforcement of anti-spam laws more effective.
The root cause is even deeper. There are millions of compromised, aka
"0wn3d", home machines out there, under the control of organized crime,
being rented to anyone who'll pay for them. The current payers are
spammers. They could just as easily include Al Qaeda. Consider these
machines just like guns stolen by criminals, to allow them to commit
crimes without being traced. As long as home machines have proxies
and/or keyloggers, any authentication process can be subverted.
Securing these machines will cut off the majority of current spam.
--
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