re: > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030524/wr_nm/tech_spam_dc_3 bill cunningham asked: > Is this what we want? The legal system taking over something that > should be done by IETF. This new legislation isn't supposed to stop > e-mail marketing, but stop deception. Will it work? :-s it's a complete waste of time, like most of the suggestions by newbies who think that their expertise in some other field (politics, law, technology) somehow gives them a leg up in understanding what needs to be done about spam. the ietf debated whether it should do anything about spam and chose "no", so by definition if not by popular opinion, "should be done by IETF" is a nonsequitur. this bill is dangerous to those who don't want to have costs (and traffic) shifted their way unilaterally, since (a) it overrides state laws, (b) will do no good even though blocking the receptor site so that nothing else will be allowed to do any good either, and (c) potentially get used as the basis for "must carry" legislation to come later, which could outlaw blocking of actual spam(*) as long as it meets the requirements of this legislation. all in all a very neat trick, and the DMA must be very proud. rep. burr's opponents in the next election can truthfully call him "the spammer's friend." -- Paul Vixie (*) see http://mail-abuse.org/standard.html