On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 02:30, Hector Santos wrote:
A spammer who claimed they were "CANSPAM compliant" sued the company
for malpractice, tort and for breaking user-vendor contracts thus violating
CANSPAM and certain provisions of US ECPA
Can you explain more clearly exactly how SA could be violating can-spam?
If can-spam says to a spammer "You may do X if you have made sure of Y
and the end recipient has not done Z; else we can press charges", what
does that have to do with the ISP or their mail filtering code at all?
I saw nothing in the act that implied that it would restrict the end ISP
in any way. (Although I saw enough horrible, illegal, and also
amazingly vague nonsense in it that I can only hope the whole law is
thrown out in court.)
I especially saw nothing linking the fed's presumed future use of
canspam's definition in prosecuting spammers, with any requirement that
anyone else must *also* use or even consider canspam's definition, such
as ISP's when they set up mail filters for end recipients.
If you see such a link somewhere, please help me see it too.
--
Mark Shewmaker
mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com