[PLUG] Spam law update

Rich Shepard rshepard at appl-ecosys.com
Mon Oct 21 19:58:18 UTC 2002


On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Bill Thoen wrote:

> I don't know. But rather than give up and say it can't be done, it would
> be more useful to consider how it *can* be done. It would probably require
> a change in the e-mail protocol that would treat an unknown message's
> status from "trusted until proven to be spam" to "not trusted until proven
> legitimate." Spammers do it for the money, so all we have to do is make it
> more expensive for them to operate. Spammers are using our resources
> without paying us, either directly or through lower access costs for us.
> By all definitions they are stealing from us.

  An article in yesterday's "Oregonian" noted that a company is tryign to do
this. They have "legitimate" mass mailers post a bond ($100,000 was the
figure mentioned) against spamming. If they violate the trust, they lose
part of their money, directly proportional to the number of complaints
received.

  I didn't pay too much attention to the details because this is a
for-profit operation and the implication is that if we peons want to make
use of the trust certification we'll have to pay for it.

  I'd rather push for a state-wide law and get folks enforcing it. Cheaper
on my end.

Rich





More information about the PLUG mailing list