> On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 23:56:52 EDT, Richard Shockey > <rshockey@ix.netcom.com> said: > > Ladies and Gentlemen I'm rather dismayed that I have not heard any rational > > response to the suggestion by my distinguished colleague Mr. Wing that the > > elements of Title 47 aka the junk fax laws could not be made applicable to > > unsolicited SMTP traffic. Many European Countries have similar laws. > > It's not just a matter of saying 'e-mail is legally fax', as > there's implications you need to chase down and deal with. > > In particular, I suggest that you also read 47 USC 227(d)(1)(B), > which states: > > (d) Technical and procedural standards > (1) Prohibition > It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States - > (A) .... > (B) to use a computer or other electronic device to send any > message via a telephone facsimile machine unless such person > clearly marks, in a margin at the top or bottom of each > transmitted page of the message or on the first page of the > transmission, the date and time it is sent and an > identification of the business, other entity, or individual > sending the message and the telephone number of the sending > machine or of such business, other entity, or individual. > > Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.... > > (Hint - was *your* e-mail stamped with the originating phone number at the > top of each page? ;) > > For bonus points - what phone number should be used to fulfill the > requirements > of 227(d)(1)(B) if it's an RFC2159 format email that never actually went > near a dialed telephone line? Does your answer change any if I retrieve > said message via PPP over a dialup modem? > > There be serious and nasty dragons here... I'm sorry if you understood my post to mean "replace 'facsimile' with 'email' and we're saved from spammers". I certainly didn't intend to have that meaning. -d