From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3F732878.7040609@acm.org> From: "D. Brownlee" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] ISP filtering - update References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:40:08 -0700 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4b58e984-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 It looks as though the congress is acting to pass a law that would effect much of what the administrative law would do, with respect to the do-not-call list. For the spam problem, we need a "killer-app," mailizard, which, like a lizard, just hangs-out waiting for insects to come by. David Presotto wrote: > As far as I can tell, using laws to stop spammers is not > very effective. Spam is essentially a nuisance. There > are indeed many local nuisance laws. However, an attempt > to injunct someone in another state from bothering you > is pretty hard. > > Local laws against bulk faxing got passed partially with the > support of businesses that claimed the fax spam was wasting > their paper and losing them business when their fax machines > didn't have paper to take orders. Similar argument may work > with spam but only once the problem gets much worse than > it is. Read HR 2515 for a fairly reasoned description of > the problem, though the solution wouldn't really help much. > They request that each sender (not transmitter) of spam > have an opt-out mechanism and that they have valid reply > info so that you can opt out. However, you get into the same > problem as opting out of telemarketing calls. If you have > to opt-out with each spammer, you could easily spend your > whole life opting out. > > A opt-out registry would be nice, but look what's happening > with the FTC's do-not-call registry. >