On 12/1/2003 11:04 AM, Eric S. Raymond sent forth electrons to convey:
I have a draft RFC for labeling; I haven't seen any arguments with the
content of the draft, it's all metadiscussion of whether we should
have a labeling standard or do something else. But there is no reason
for that to be an exclusive-or -- we need to have a labeling standard
ready to hand the FTC in case CAN-SPAM passes.
I suggested some things that should be in the standard - in the email
I'm quoted from below.
I guess my wording was too unclear (it was convoluted - sorry), you
missed 'em or rejected 'em, Eric.
e.g. "The IETF ...[should] ... create such a standard, one that
self-identifies UCE could be useful."
In terms of law that is frea speach challenge-proof, and may keep the
EFF ostensibly happy, while doing something about spam, the rules that
prohibit just false advertising, including misleading header content are
better than laws requiring labeling, though yes they could work together.
On 12/1/2003 9:57 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip sent forth electrons to convey:
Eric is completely right about this. If you look into the legal issues
it is
very easy to see why the bill has a labelling requirement.
Labelling makes no sense in the context of technical enforcement. It makes a
great deal of sense if you are dealling with first ammendment issues and
enforcement.
I don't think frea speach spammer defenders see forced speech as any
better than censored speech.
I don't know of any legal precedent that sees them as different either.
Thus I don't see labels as terribly helpful, 1st amendment and law
enforcement-wise.
Matthew:
1. This was tried already in California, and failed abysmally. It
won't be enforced or effective.
California ain't the Feds.
The California bill has only been signed a few months. It is far too soon to
know what effect it will have. At the FTC workshop the lawyers for the
states mostly stated that they were acting in order to spur federal action.
Uh, no, labeling law has been on the books for years.
I'm talking about the current California law, not the law that SB 186
will make law and S.877 will render powerless 1/1/04.
See <http://law.spamcon.org/us-laws/states/ca/lawindex.shtml>
Abstract excerpt: Requires senders of Unsolicited Commercial E-mail to
(a) include the text "ADV:ADLT" at the beginning of the subject line for
"adult" UCE, (b) include the text "ADV:" at the beginning of the subject
line of all other UCE...
Clearly, it failed abysmally! And it's better than S877's labeling
feature because at least it's UCE, not all CE (Commercial Email) that
must be labeled.
(I don't want the purchase confirmation when I buy a plane ticket
labeled ADV:! The label should only be required on spam!!!)
Eric, if your draft continues to offer a labeling scheme for CE instead
of UCE, I'm going to create a competing draft.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg