Hector Santos wrote:
I would be on the side that after you after you given the right the send,
it would be the professional and ethical duty of the "messenger" to deliver
it. That is where ECPA issues may arise and now CAN-SPAM regardless what
Section 8 says. CAN-SPAM may not change the fact that policy issues may
prevail, the fact is ONCE you do accept a message, you can't just get like
it go into the LA-LA land without a policy reason.
People better start waking up to the reality that CAN-SPAM will give
SPAMMERS the "right" to send as long as they follow the rules and law. If
you don't think they will use this in their favor in situations where ISPs
and sites are "blocking" them, then be ready for a rude awakening. If the
SPAMMER has a "conceptual contract" with the user and you being to block
this mail when they did everything in the rule books, look out for fan
debris.
No, it doesn't. This has been stated before on this list. CAN-SPAM allows
any service provider to block messages for any policy reason. It only
defines what senders CAN NOT legally do.
The IETF best get on the bandwagon to get the specifications cleared up and
begin to make them consistent with the law ASAP, not 18 months from now.
They are perfectly consistent with the law. The law says recipient servers
can do whatever they want with local policy, the RFCs say recipient servers
can do whatever they want with local policy.
CAN-SPAM 'compliance' is purely the burden of senders of commercial email.
There is nothing in it which says that recipient servers can, cannot,
should, or should not enforce the requirements placed on senders.
CAN-SPAM requires a valid return path in all commercial email. It does NOT
require that recipient servers accept all commercial email so long as it has
a valid return path.
Philip Miller
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg