On Mar 23, 2009, at 3:27 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
It's happened to me twice, with two different lists of his. I've
complained to him, but to no avail. I wonder if the CAN SPAM act
applies.
IANAL but my impression is that it definitely does apply, possibly
multiply and possibly even with sanctions. As noted, this is a
relatively tricky topic, but I am still pretty sure he goes far
beyond the limits it defines.
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C103.txt
The term "commercial electronic mail message" means any electronic
mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial
advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service
(including content on an Internet website operated for a commercial
purpose). The term "commercial electronic mail message" does not
include a transactional or relationship message.
Transactional or relationships include:
a subscription, membership, account, loan, or comparable ongoing
commercial relationship involving the ongoing purchase or use by the
recipient of products or services offered by the sender; (iv) to
provide information directly related to an employment relationship or
related benefit plan in which the recipient is currently involved,
participating, or enrolled;
....
where:
It is the sense of Congress that -
(1) Spam has become the method of choice for those who distribute
pornography, perpetrate fraudulent schemes, and introduce viruses,
worms, and Trojan horses into personal and business computer systems;
and
(2) the Department of Justice should use all existing law enforcement
tools to investigate and prosecute those who send bulk commercial e-
mail to facilitate the commission of Federal crimes, including the
tools contained in chapters 47 and 63 of title 18 (relating to fraud
and false statements); chapter 71 of title 18 (relating to obscenity);
chapter 110 of title 18 (relating to the sexual exploitation of
children); and chapter 95 of title 18 (relating to racketeering), as
appropriate.
CAN-SPAM also limits legal standing to network providers and law
enforcement.
Since the IETF distributes email-addresses of subscribers, rather than
obscuring them, when email-addresses are obtained from received
messages that relate to some ongoing issue, this would not be
harvesting. It is not uncommon to even see emails that ask why you
unsubscribed. As long as the email relates to a prior relationship,
it would be difficult to make a strong case, especially when the IETF
is complicit in the distribution of the email-addresses. One might
even ask why are these email-addresses included if it would be illegal
to respond to these addresses.
Unless the emails are deceptive in some way, CAN-SPAM does not seem to
apply. Perhaps the IETF may reconsider obscuring email-addresses.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf