Once again, this issue is out of scope for the ASRG, and the proper
forum for this would be the main IETF list, directly speaking to the IAB
or some lawyers. If you want to continue this discussion, do it off-list.
Sincerely,
Yakov Shafranovich
Co-Chair, ASRG
Hector Santos wrote:
----- Original Message ----- >
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.
No, read it again, the ACT does not attempt to CHANGE any current policy or
status quo.
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.
Read the ECPA, CAN-SPAM and speak to a lawyer, like I have. There are
inconsistencies and new issues now.
CAN-SPAM 'compliance' is purely the burden of senders of commercial email.
No quite. Without POLICY, you can not just BLOCK mail when there is consent
with a user. That is how it is today with the ECPA!
There is nothing in it which says that recipient servers can, cannot,
should, or should not enforce the requirements placed on senders.
If you going to BLOCK, then you better have a good reason.
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.
Not quite.
It has been a LONG STANDING practice held by ECPA precedence that ONCE you
accept a message, it must be delivered. You can't just accept it and do
whatever you want with it. If you are, you shouldn't be servicing anyone
and TRUST me, you OPEN yourself to a lawsuit. You can have ALL the
policies in the world, that doesn't say ANYTHING that stops me sending
lawyers after you.
There are noted inconsistencies in the CAN-SPAM act. The ACT will GIVE
spammers a legal argument if they are in compliance and you are are NOT in
compliance, you open yourself to Mal-practice, Tortious inference and ECPA
related issues.
Look, I've been designing mail servers and hosting systems for over 25
years! Do you think I speak out my rear end If you have the experience,
then you would know better. And again, I have spoken with my lawyer, who is
one of the best IP lawyers in the country. The CAN-SPAM Act opens up a
whole new frontier. It needs to be fine tune, like any law does. After
all, thats the hallmark our our american society - a constant fine tuning.
Of course, I am speaking as a professional with products serving the
professional and corporate environment. Many ISPs small and large. The
design of our product must comply with the standards, ethical engineering
and the applicable laws governing electronic communications. There is
NOTHING new about that. The ECPA made sure of that.
Now sure, SYSOPS can have a POLICY. But that POLICY must also include the
fact that there is NO GUARANTEE delivery. If you don't and you accept the
mail, you can be LIABLE - not because of CAN-SPAM, but because ECPA.
In the past, SPAMMERS didn't care. They were getting away with Murder. Now
with CAN-SPAM, I highly recommend you have your policy and your system in
order.
-- Hector
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
-------
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"I ate your Web page. / Forgive me. It was juicy / And tart on my
tongue." (MIT's 404 Message)
-------
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg