On Aug 23, 2007, at 3:33 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Marginal and criminal elements are _always_ the most innovative people around if there is profit in stretching the boundaries of the rules. In normal environments, the consequences of those innovations are limited by effective legislation that criminalizes sufficiently bad behavior and by enforcement and punishment structures that create significant negative incentives for that behavior.
Unfortunately, much of the undesired behavior happens under a guise of commerce. CAN-SPAM illustrates marketing associations' influence, where those harmed now have no legal standing. Any amount of e-mail referencing prior visits is not spam. Any request to stop may not be immediate, and does not impair any number of affiliates. Even replying "Unsubscribe" indicates the e-mail is being read, and makes the address a valuable commodity.
The "opt-out" fallacy extended into a "Do Not Solicit E-mail" list that was dropped after the fallacy of enforcing "opt-out" became apparent. Unfortunately an inability to enforce "opt-out" did not change legislation into an "opt-in" model. Prior to this legislation, the only model able to limit spam has been "Opt-In" when publishing bulk e-mail. Is it really easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission?
Legislators remain oblivious to practical considerations for curbing abuse and enforcement. Unless employed by the government or an Internet provider, one has no standing to even seek enforcement or punishment. Which problem were legislators attempting to solve, and for whom?
-Doug _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf