spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2822 Header Analysis [Re: The pretty name]

2004-10-01 03:21:53
On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 04:58, Hector Santos wrote:
From: "Mark Shewmaker" <mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com>

Before
CANSPAM, there was nothing within the Federal Laws and guidelines that give
Direct Marketers the privy to do business using user-vendor contracts.

I'm sorry.  I don't see where CANSPAM caused marketers to gain any
rights they didn't already have, (excepting the fact that it pre-empted
state anti-spam laws.)

As far as I can tell, it merely made certain actions illegal.  I don't
see how it actually legitimized anything, or caused senders to be able
to have any additional privileges that they didn't already have.

Why do you think the Direct Marketers quickly endorsed the bill?    It gives
them the right to do business, and if you going to break what could be
considered a Legal transaction, you better have a good reason for doing so
because they now have legal grounds to stand on.

I had always assumed that the direct marketers liked the fact that it
*looked* like their shoddy business practices gained some legitimacy
from the act.  I never saw where they actually did gain any new actual
legal legitimacy at all, even though they did gain the 
marketing-lie-type appearance of such.

(I also figured they wanted some sort of weak bill to pass, to ease
pressure and attention away from having a stronger bill go through.  And
of course they didn't object to the serious flaws in it that aren't
important to them.)

Of course, this is based on the idea if SA is automatically doing the job of
rejection without USER knowledge. If the USER specifically wanted to reject
it,  I doubt the spammer can claim damage.  However, I don't believe that is
the situation in this SA lawsuit.

I understand.

However, I still don't see how CANSPAM changes things here.

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 don't quite get your analogy or question, but its all about running a
business properly.

I'll rephrase, and be a bit sloppy for conciseness:  :-)

Government says:

  We don't consider this email to be spam, so we won't prosecute.

And an ISP says:

  We do consider this email to be spam, so we will filter.

Where does CANSPAM ever imply that isp[spam_definition} must be the same
as government[spam_definition]?

Another example:

In the State of Georgia, candidates in an election have to achieve a
majority to win in statewide elections.  After the 1992 elections, the
state changed the definition of the word "majority" when applied to
statewide elections to mean 45%.  (I think--the actual law is *REALLY*
hard to read and there are all these weird special cases that aren't
important for the analogy here.  In other elections you merely have to
get a plurality that is at least some other percentage.)

So, if a statewide election results in one candidate getting 48% of the
vote, and that candidate also has the highest vote total, that candidate
will win with a majority-that's-not-a-majority.

If a news station reports that the candidate had won without even
getting a majority of a vote, is that a slanderous statement?  When
making statements of fact, does the news station have to use the
specific, convoluted legal definition over the common-use mathematical
definition?

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.

If I understand your point,  you are suggesting the possibility for an ISP
to claim he does now follow Federal Law?  Thus if the ISP itself is not
CAMSPAM compliant, then CAMSPAM related suits can not used against them?

No, no.

I'm saying that I don't see anything in the law that means that when the
Feds consider person X not to be a spammer that I also have to consider
person X not to be a spammer.  (Or vice versa.)

If I were wanting to contract out some work to be done, opened up bids,
and had my own requirements that my bidders would have to meet, could a
bidder who didn't meet *my* bidding requirements legitimately complain
in court, claiming that I should be accepting his bids on the basis of
his meeting Federal requirements to bid on Federal projects?

-- 
Mark Shewmaker
mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com