ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK

2003-12-10 00:08:54
I am not a lawyer, but as it happens, I _have_ read the CAN-SPAM bill.
You can look at it here:

    http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html

On Dec 9,  6:55pm, Hector Santos wrote:
}
} If proposal Y covers CAN-SPAM, it will be used over Proposal X which
} does not.

It doesn't really make sense to discuss technical changes to MUAs or MTAs
in the context of CAN-SPAM Act "return address requirements."  The main
thrust of the Act prohibits senders from using false or misleading header
information.  A secondary provision is that unsolicted commercial messages
must have a working opt-out mechanism -- which includes "other Internet-
based" mechanisms, as well as the return address.

In other words, the Act does NOT require the return address to be valid
as long as there's some other obvious way to ask the sender to stop.
There's even an explicit provision saying that temporary failure of the
reply mechanism is not considered a violation of the Act.

And the requirements have absolutely no bearing on any message that does
not fall within the Act's definition of "commercial."

} The potential problem I see with any proposal that does not support
} CAN-SPAM requirements is that it opens the legal door for CAN-SPAM
} compliant spammers to legally sue those systems that are rejecting
} mail using non-CAN-SPAM methods.

Baseless FUD.  Secion 8 of the Act:

       * (c) NO EFFECT ON POLICIES OF PROVIDERS OF INTERNET ACCESS
         SERVICE- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any
         effect on the lawfulness or unlawfulness, under any other
         provision of law, of the adoption, implementation, or
         enforcement by a provider of Internet access service of a
         policy of declining to transmit, route, relay, handle, or store
         certain types of electronic mail messages.

} Again, I have not read the CAN-SPAM bill yet, but I believe I also
} read (here) that the bill stated mail systems must be IETF compliant.
} No?

No.  Here's the actual language ("The Commission" is the FTC):

       * The Commission shall transmit to the Senate Committee on
         Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of
         Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce--
[...]
            * (2) a report, within 18 months after the date of enactment
              of this Act, that sets forth a plan for requiring
              commercial electronic mail to be identifiable from its
              subject line, by means of compliance with Internet
              Engineering Task Force Standards, the use of the
              characters `ADV' in the subject line, or other comparable
              identifier, or an explanation of any concerns the
              Commission has that cause the Commission to recommend
              against the plan. *

That's the ONLY reference to the IETF in the Act.  It places requirements
on the FTC report, not on mail systems.
 
} Remember, CAN-SPAM is a double edge, it places controls and
} restrictions but it also gives spammers the legal authority to
} send spam and if a mail system is rejecting/filtering mail using
} non-CAN-SPAM methodologies, it can potentially opens Pandora's box.

Again, I think you're speaking based on a misconception.  CAN-SPAM may
have several edges, but this is not one of them.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg