Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 15 Jul 1997 10:45:11 -0700
From:      Sean Eric Fagan <sef@Kithrup.COM>
To:        chat@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Curious about application of Anti-SPAM law.
Message-ID:  <199707151745.KAA15981@kithrup.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970715082420.22478A-100000.kithrup.freebsd.chat@harlie.bfd.com>
References:  <Pine.BSF.3.96.970715092751.1216B-100000@ady.warp.starnets.ro>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <Pine.BSF.3.95.970715082420.22478A-100000.kithrup.freebsd.chat@harlie.bfd.com> you write:
>
>First, this isn't about potentially including email in the fax ban. Nevada
>recently became the first state to enact legislation with a penalty
>specifically for unrequested commercial email. ($10 per message).

The Nevada law is a joke.  No, it's worse than a joke -- it's a horrible
mistake, which will do more harm than good.

First of all, it is an opt-out law, instead of opt-in.  That means that a
spammer simply has to get a new account name, and can send you as much email
as he likes.  Also, he can send as much email as he likes until you say
"stop."

Second, it only requires that there be a "method" for opting out.  It
doesn't say what this method needs to be; as written, the law would allow a
spammer to charge $100 (or any other arbitrary amount) to be taken off the
list.  And then it doesn't really enforce it.

What is worst about this is that the law that was originall drafted was
actually pretty reasonable.  Then, at the last minute, the DMA did some
behind-the-doors lobbying, and the law was changed in secret and then passed
off to the governero, who signed it into law.

As a spam deterrent, the law does nothing except legitimize spam.  The DMA
must be ecstatic.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707151745.KAA15981>