----- Original Message -----
From: "Lars Dybdahl" <lars(_at_)dybdahl(_dot_)dk>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not
Spam" can work
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Tirsdag den 15. juni 2004 23:35 skrev Meng Weng Wong:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/06/canspam2.htm
Try to imagine that every country has a "do not spam me" e-mail list,
because the legislators are trying to convert their snail mail
anti-spam laws into e-mail anti-spam laws word by word.
I really hope, that the legislators in EU and USA understand, that
these kinds of lists should be based on market principles, since the
definition of spam is subjective, and not something that can be
written into a law.
It's farily trivial to encode into law. The US Junk Fax law, USCC 18
paragraph 2701, is an excellent example of such a law and has passed the
constitutional challenges raised by Junk Mail/Fax/Spam lobbying organization
of the "Direct Marketing Association". There have been several attempts to
extend its language very, very slightly to include spam (defined as
Unsolicited Bulk Communications, *not* defined as advertising!), but all
such efforts have been defeated in committee by the lobbyists of the Direct
Marketing Association.
If you use the "onsolicited bulk" criterion for spam, what is defined as
spam becomes much easier to handle in legal terms, especially in countries
where free speech is considered a basic right.