----- Original Message -----
From: "Einar Stefferud" <Stef(_at_)thor(_dot_)nma(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 4:16 AM
Subject: Re: Why Spam is a problem
Opt out is not a good spam solution, since in most cases, the opt out
email address is generally used to collect good "live" addresses for
use by other spammers.
So, we have mostly all learned to never reply to an opt out offer.
I have never seen one that worked, and now I never reply to them.
How could the law detect that opt out FROM addresses do not become a
valuable commodity for other purposes? How deeply do you want to
bring the government into the protocol development and program coding
business? Are you going to station FBI officers in the spammer's
offices?
To solve the problem, any anti-spam law has to require Opt-IN
procedures, and documentation of the Opt In actions. And even then,
they can fake the opt-in EMail documents. How many times already do
you get spam that claims they have your opt-in records.
Come to think of it, I expect that the FAX opt out process also is
used to collect good (live) FAX numbers, these days.
Cheers...\Stef
When you go into a business you may see a "No Soliciting" sign. This sign is
backed up by law. I've never seen a "Soliciters are welcome here" sign.
If MIME protocols had built in extensions that were the equivalant of a "No
Soliciting" sign, and were backed up by law, could that work?