The folks in California have, over the course of the last 50 years, proven that
you can't legislate good sense. All the well-intentioned legislative attempts
to "fix" what's a world-view problem have failed. Look at the illegal
immigration issue. Look at the effects of their tax limitation program. Look
at the energy cost deregulation debacle. Every time the gov gets in, the costs
go up.
What's needs to be done is SOMETHING that is part of the internet, not part of
U.S. law.
The majority of the SPAM I receive is not only from foreign hosts, but in
languages I can't read. I most often don't even have the required character set
loaded up.
U.S. law won' have any impact outside the U.S.
We can consider laws to regulate internet behavior when we successfully
implement a system of laws that regulates social behavior within our country.
In the meantime, let's keep the GOV out of our internet. All they'll do is
limit our ability to use the thing. They won't make it work better. What's
needed is a way to identify bulk mailings of all sorts, so that the sender can
be charged proportionally to his/her bandwidth consumption. That's the REAL
problem with SPAM. It steals bandwidth. Loss of this bandwidth will inevitably
result in all of us having to pay for the bandwidth we use. That will result in
the very people who should be using the internet using it less because it costs
more to use it more. The bandwidth cost has to be structured such that
high-volume uses pay MORE not less. Just like electrical power users, the use
of more than a typical small household requires should be penalized with higher
rates ... MUCH higher rates ... rather than lower rates as a reward for wasting
more.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Archer" <dogbert_at_mindless.com>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: Wave of the Future (Spam)
>
>
> Steve Robertson wrote:
>
> > >
> > >I agree with Tony here, in that there has to be a valid application for the
> > >features of email that so many SPAMmers have exploited. However, if you
> > >want to do away with bulk email, something's got to be done. This means
> > >somebody, somewhere, will lose. Perhaps, if unsolicited bulk mailings were
> > >just easier to recognize ...
> >
>
> I know I'm replying to the wrong message, but can't find the original.
>
> Fix Federal law, like they did to stop bulk FAXes. Being able to
> identify the spammer is indeed 90% of the battle. People tend to
> be far less obnoxious when you know where they live, even if only
> in cyberspace.
>
> Impose a stiff fine, with teeth, for any spam mailer found to be using
> a bogus return address, and a greatly enhanced fine for using a valid address
> that is not theirs, and allow the legitimate holder of the address the right
> to sue for damages if they get hate mail.
>
> Require that a human being, not an autoresponder, be reachable at the UCE
mail's
>
> return address, and spot check to make sure they're reading and responding
> periodically. Bounced messages could be forwarded directly to some department
> of the FTC or Justice Department to track down the origin. It would be a huge
> job,
> but at least for US-based spammers, it might deter truly obnoxious behavior.
> (Most ISPs would (80?)86 a client with huge mailboxes overflowing with
> complaints.)
>
> To work, I guess it would have to be a net revenue generator.
> It probably wouldn't work but maybe it would silence or reform the
> worst offenders.
>
> Just some idle thoughts. I'm sure holes will be shot through starting
> immediately. :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Since I can't keep SPAM out of my (snail) mailbox and I can't keep SPAM off
> > of my phone (unsolicited calls), I really don't have any expectations about
> > keeping it out of my email.
> >
> > With the costs being so low, I'm surprised we (Internet users) don't get a
> > whole lot more SPAM.
> >
> > SteveRob
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
Received on Fri Jun 22 2001 - 09:09:44 BST