Actually, I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to try to first design a tech solution that might lead to legislative buy-in around the world. Really. Here's a wild idea. The US is currently on the verge of adopting a national do-not-call list. This is an opt-in list in which consumers list their phone numbers and telemarketers are not allowed to call with sales pitches. What we need is a do-not-spam list for email address...which cannot itself become a tool for spammers (this is the problem with whois - email addresses there get harvested by spammers). So maybe we need something that a spammer *could* lookup against before sending emails, but can't use the ack/no-ack to get email addresses. And then we make failing to do so an offense. And then start campaigning to get this law -- which as it's less Draconian is also less controversial -- adopted all over. I presume that plans which depend on intermediaries doing the looking up fail, since the intermediaries can't be expected to ID what is spam and what is not. On 13 Aug 2002, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> writes: > > it's much more difficult to filter spam in general. one person's spam > > might be another person's life-changing investment opportunity... > > I understand the "free speech!" attitude and such, but unfortunately > it isn't reasonable. They're making me pay for their free speech. > > I've also heard the "how could we possibly define spam!?" concept > before, but it is fairly easy to define the concept legally. See, for > example, the TCPA, which very nicely defines its terms for telephone > solicitation. > > Want some sample text? > > First we define in the act an "electronic mail solicitation" as a > "initiation of a message by electronic mail, instant messaging, or > similar means for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental > of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is > transmitted to any person, but such term does not include a call or > message (A) to any person with that person's prior express invitation > or permission, (B) to any person with whom the caller has an > established business or personal relationship." > > We then define an "automated electronic mailing list system" as a > "device that has the capacity to store or generate lists of ten or > more electronic mail addresses and to transmit a substantially similar > electronic mail message to each of said addresses." > > Then we define an "automated electronic mail solicitation" as an > "electronic mail solicitation by means of an automated electronic > mailing list system" and we ban it, and allow people to sue for $1000 > a pop for when people violate it in addition, a la the TCPA. > > Might there be flaws in the language? Sure but they could be doctored > a bit. > > Will this stop someone from emailing a person they met at IETF about > cattle futures? No. Will it stop someone from automatically emailing > everyone who attended IETF soliciting their investment in cattle > futures? Yes. > > Is this the right approach? You can argue about that. On the other > hand, it is silly to pretend it can't be done. Of course the law could > be drafted. It could even be drafted in such a way as to avoid > impacting almost any of what we think of as "legitimate" commerce. > > > Perry > > -- **NOTE: 7/31-8/14 law.miami.edu will have random downtime due to "network upgrades". Mail will bounce, and www.law.tm will 404.** Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's very hot here.<--