On Aug 23, 2007, at 3:33 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Marginal and criminal elements are _always_ the most innovative
people around if there is profit in stretching the boundaries of
the rules. In normal environments, the consequences of those
innovations are limited by effective legislation that criminalizes
sufficiently bad behavior and by enforcement and punishment
structures that create significant negative incentives for that
behavior.
Unfortunately, much of the undesired behavior happens under a guise
of commerce. CAN-SPAM illustrates marketing associations' influence,
where those harmed now have no legal standing. Any amount of e-mail
referencing prior visits is not spam. Any request to stop may not be
immediate, and does not impair any number of affiliates. Even
replying "Unsubscribe" indicates the e-mail is being read, and makes
the address a valuable commodity.
The "opt-out" fallacy extended into a "Do Not Solicit E-mail" list
that was dropped after the fallacy of enforcing "opt-out" became
apparent. Unfortunately an inability to enforce "opt-out" did not
change legislation into an "opt-in" model. Prior to this
legislation, the only model able to limit spam has been "Opt-In" when
publishing bulk e-mail. Is it really easier to ask for forgiveness
than to ask for permission?
Legislators remain oblivious to practical considerations for curbing
abuse and enforcement. Unless employed by the government or an
Internet provider, one has no standing to even seek enforcement or
punishment. Which problem were legislators attempting to solve, and
for whom?
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf