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

[owen () DeLong SJ CA US (Owen DeLong)]

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

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