Actually, I've been in touch with an attorney at the FTC. It seems they have been factually misled on some issues. --Dean On Mon, 26 May 2003, Richard Welty wrote: > > On Mon, 26 May 2003 12:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU> wrote: > > So, what happens when the FTC, which is today very business-friendly, > > decides to place no restriction at all on "real Commercial" spam? > > Given the current politics in Washington, that seems like a likely > > scenario. > > i disagree. > > from what i have heard from participants in the FTC "spam summit" (and > what i viewed in some of the recordings of sessions which were available > online briefly), it seems clear that the FTC has done the math and > understands the nature of the problem fairly well. > > however, they are tightly constrained by their mandate from Congress. this > is where the real problem lies. > > there are at least some legislators who are willing to write legislation > that refers to standards from recognized standards bodies (e.g., the IETF). > this is where the opportunity for the IETF to help lies -- to devise new > standards and protocols which won't necessarily stop spam, but which when > combined with legislation and properly funded enforcement bodies, can stop > or at least cut it down. > > the international nature of the problem is undersood by at least some > legislators as well. Senator Schumer (NY) is already on record as believing > that there will need to be international treaties as part of the solution > to the spam problem. > > one of the things that has contributed to the evident lack of progress is > the argument about technical means vs legislative/enforcement means. > neither is really sufficient, it will take a combination of the two. > > richard > -- > Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net > Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 > Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security > > > >