Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 09:24:32 -0700 (MST)
From: Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>
Message-ID: <200203171624.g2HGOW01009252@calcite.rhyolite.com>
| That you cannot tell whether someone climbing through a window in a
| neighbor's house is a burglar or someone who lost their keys does not
| change whether a crime is being committed or whether you ought to call
| the police.
This isn't really relevant, but it certainly changes whether a crime
is being committed. On the assumption that I don't know however, it
is still reasonable (good) to inform the police so it can be investigated.
| Similarly, a responsible ISP can
| often determine by various means whether spam has been sent, starting
| with complaints alleging spam.
Though you think you're disagreeing with me, you aren't. You say that
if enough people complain about a message being spam, it is. But for any
to complain, they have to treat it as spam. To them it is simply an
unwanted unsolicited message. That's what they receive, that's what
causes them to complain, that's what makes it spam.
| Defining "spam" as any unsolicited and undesirable mail not only
| makes it impossible for strangers to sent you mail but trivializes
| the offense and makes it harder to penalize the real spammers.
Not at all, the penalty just needs to be multiplied by the number of
offences. Make it a $1 fine for each unwanted unsolicited message sent.
Then if I send you a message explaining my views of the world, and you
don't want it, I may have to fork out $1 as compensation. That's a risk
that I should be willing to undertake - how much of a risk it will be
will depend upon how accurately I can judge what you will be offended by
enough to complain about. And of course, there has to be someone willing
to bother collecting a penalty that small.
What you regard as a "real spammer" on the other hand, who sends 100000 or
10000000 or something messages is going to face a penalty worth collecting.
kre