Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs

[Dory Ethan Leifer <leifer () terminator rs itd umich edu>]

You can also bet that ISPs interfering with the delivery of even junk
spams is going to be a tough thing in court. I think the spammers will
have plenty of legal precedent to remove the ISPs blocking. Ultimately,
only the intended recipient can do the blocking.

Dory

> The definition of "real email address" is a vague thing indeed...  For
> example, I have many "real email addresses".  I have many more addresses
> I could legitimately claim are real addresses that are, in fact, routed
> to /dev/null.  Why heck, the use of the <> construct could be considered
> a real email address.  I realize the bill addresses this to a certain
> extent, but not enough.
>
> The other problem is that any spammer outside the US can fry any ISP inside
> the US with this law.
>
> Owen
>
> > Yes that would be a cinical view :)  One thing that I like is it requires
> > the sender to use their REAL address, and flag the message as a SPAM.  It 
> > would also need to cover the unauthorized use of MY mail relay server.
> > Thus the SPAMMER would have to use there server and NOT bounce off of me.
> > To do so would be considered a theft of service.
> >
> > jmbrown
> >
> > > Seems to me it's even worse than this.  Seems to me that the bill, while
> > > well intentioned, could be used by Spammers to say "See, it's OK to SPAM,
> > > it says so here.  We put the word advertisement on the subject line.  See,
> > > if people don't want to see it, the law says their ISP filters it.  We're
> > > doing exactly what the law says we should.  It condones SPAM."
> > >
> > > Or did I miss something about this law?
> > >
> > > Owen
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -