spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2004-10-01 03:56:20
Mark Shewmaker wrote:
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.

Not being in the US, I personally couldn't care less what CAN-SPAM says, but my understanding was that it "asserts no legal effect on Internet Service Providers rights to reject unwelcome email traffic, implement and enforce any spam blocking or email service policy they see fit" - quote from
http://www.spamhaus.org/position/CAN-SPAM_Act_2003.html

Implementing SA would therefore seem to be one of the things an ISP can do without legal risk from CAN-SPAM?

Paul.