nanog mailing list archives
Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP
From: "Jeffrey I. Schiller" <jis () MIT EDU>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 16:22:05 -0400
On Oct 16, 12:09pm, Robert Raisch, The Internet Company wrote:
I would like to propose that we seek legislative relief from this ever-increasing problem. I have spoken with counsel and now understand what is required to support the enactment of federal legislation to prohibit the misuse of electronic mail and Usenet news by unprincipled "spammers." There is already law which prohibits marketing via facsimile and cellular telephone. My position is that e-mail and Usenet news are similar vehicles in the sense that there is a measurable cost on the receiver's end. I believe that this has the potential of being a high-visibility legal issue, and one that would be a "vote getter" as it speaks directly to an educated, active voting constituency.
How do you propose to deal with off-shore spammers? This isn't an issue for FAXing because an offshore FAX sender would have to pay international phone rates, which act as a natural deterent. However an e-mail message can be as quickly and easily sent from off-shore as it can be sent from within the U.S. Legislative solutions will also not address the ease of which someone can spam using someone else's name, not to mention the ease of routing the spam through other Internet hosts, including those which are offshore. It is bad enough today that when someone sends spam that appears to be from my institution (but is often only forged to appear that way), that I receive many complaints from people across the network. If such spam was against the law, I suspect that I would be visited by law enforcement agents, who will waste my time while I explain (or prove) that the spam did in fact not originate from my institution. Policies (and laws) which are not enforceable are often worse then no laws at all. -Jeff
Current thread:
- Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP Robert Raisch, The Internet Company (Oct 16)
- Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP Paul Ferguson (Oct 16)
- Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP bmanning (Oct 16)
- Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP Justin Newton (Oct 18)
- Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP Larry J. Plato (Oct 16)
- Message not available
- Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP Jeffrey I. Schiller (Oct 16)
- Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP Paul Ferguson (Oct 16)
- Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP Jeffrey I. Schiller (Oct 16)
- Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP Paul Ferguson (Oct 16)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP Jon Postel (Oct 16)
- Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP Tim Bass (Oct 16)
- What is SPAM? - was Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion... Dave Siegel (Oct 16)
- Re: What is SPAM? - was Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion... Larry J. Plato (Oct 16)
- Re: What is SPAM? - was Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion... Barry Shein (Oct 16)
- Re: What is SPAM? - was Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion... Jim De Arras (Oct 17)
- Re: What is SPAM? - was Re: blah blah blah Elliot Alby (Oct 17)
- Re: What is SPAM? - was Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion... Carl Payne (Oct 17)
- Message not available
- Re: What is SPAM? - was Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion... Len Rose (Oct 17)
- Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP Tim Bass (Oct 16)