ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] How about we do something about spam?

2007-01-30 05:28:38


On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Douglas Otis wrote:


On Jan 29, 2007, at 2:48 PM, Barry Shein wrote:

On January 29, 2007 at 13:48 dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org (Douglas Otis) 
wrote:
The US Federal government allows bulk sending of unsolicited email.

To be precise the "US Federal government" allows nothing specifically in this realm. There are activities which are expressly or by implication of law illegal or subject to regulatory or civil limitations.

,---
|CAN-SPAM Act of 2003:
|SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
|(16) SENDER-
| (A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
| the term `sender', when used with respect to a commercial
| electronic mail message, means a person who initiates
| such a message and whose product, service, or Internet
| web site is advertised or promoted by the message.
|
| (B) SEPARATE LINES OF BUSINESS OR DIVISIONS- If an entity
| operates through separate lines of business or divisions
| and holds itself out to the recipient throughout the
| message as that particular line of business or division
| rather than as the entity of which such line of business
| or division is a part, then the line of business or the
| division shall be treated as the sender of such message
| for purposes of this Act.
|...
| (5) INCLUSION OF IDENTIFIER, OPT-OUT, AND PHYSICAL ADDRESS
| IN COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL- (A) It is unlawful for any
| person to initiate the transmission of any commercial
| electronic mail message to a protected computer _unless_
| the message provides--
|   (i) clear and conspicuous identification that the message
|       is an advertisement or solicitation;
|  (ii) clear and conspicuous notice of the opportunity under
|       paragraph (3) to decline to receive further commercial
|       electronic mail messages from the sender; and
| (iii) a valid physical postal address of the sender.
'___


While I agree that this provision represents an amazing lack of spine on the part of the congress, it isn't as though I get any spam that conforms to all three of these identifiers. In fact, no more than a couple of percent include even one (usually (i)). So this provision does not yet represent a barrier to anti-spam activity. No doubt if the FTC or DOJ took some action against US based spammers, they would make hast to conform to the law, but that hasn't happened yet. And nothing in the law interferes with private action to reject messages, spam or not.

Daniel Feenberg


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