From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Jul 15 10:45:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA12825 for chat-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 10:45:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [205.179.156.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA12817 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 10:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from sef@localhost) by kithrup.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id KAA15981; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 10:45:11 -0700 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 10:45:11 -0700 From: Sean Eric Fagan Message-Id: <199707151745.KAA15981@kithrup.com> To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Curious about application of Anti-SPAM law. In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Sender: owner-chat@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In article you write: > >First, this isn't about potentially including email in the fax ban. Nevada >recently became the first state to enact legislation with a penalty >specifically for unrequested commercial email. ($10 per message). The Nevada law is a joke. No, it's worse than a joke -- it's a horrible mistake, which will do more harm than good. First of all, it is an opt-out law, instead of opt-in. That means that a spammer simply has to get a new account name, and can send you as much email as he likes. Also, he can send as much email as he likes until you say "stop." Second, it only requires that there be a "method" for opting out. It doesn't say what this method needs to be; as written, the law would allow a spammer to charge $100 (or any other arbitrary amount) to be taken off the list. And then it doesn't really enforce it. What is worst about this is that the law that was originall drafted was actually pretty reasonable. Then, at the last minute, the DMA did some behind-the-doors lobbying, and the law was changed in secret and then passed off to the governero, who signed it into law. As a spam deterrent, the law does nothing except legitimize spam. The DMA must be ecstatic.