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

[jmbrown () ihighway net (John M. Brown)]

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -