On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Barry Shein
<bzs(_at_)world(_dot_)std(_dot_)com> wrote:
There are many working systems, business models, on this planet which
do not require or even attempt perfection. [...]
A scheme doesn't have to be airtight by any means to be effective.
Excellent point. This is why I believe that recipients are capable of
running
their own stamp franking and verification; if there were a commonly
definded
method of transport.
Can they cheat? Of course they can cheat. But the real question is
what are the chances they would get caught and what is the penalty?
Do we dare open the legislation topic? It's pretty clear that CAN-SPAM
is not effective. If one is using "stamps", is there any legal benefit (in
the USA) ? Might a recipient be able to legally pursue a spammer for
abusing their "stamp generator" (under fraud laws) as opposed to
CAN-SPAM? With an out-of-SMTP-band stamp "purchase", the recipient
is able to define the process senders need to follow to obtain their
"stamps", we would hope leaving an audit trail in the process. Clearly
fraud laws would apply if the stamps involved micropayment, maybe
not if you couldn't assign a cash value to the "stamps".
Gerald
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg