[PLUG] House Passed the Anti-Spam Bill

Holger Stephan holger at selover.net
Sun Nov 23 09:49:01 UTC 2003


On Sun, 2003-11-23 at 09:22, Grish wrote:
> I can't say I've read the bill yet, but I haven't heard of any
> provision which requires something like Adv: in the subject line.

Sure, that's what is required in California. I haven't read it either
but some standard marker in the header is what I expect from a "correct
header". 

> Correct headers is not necessarily equal to identification. And none
> of this matters still when it comes to spam coming from overseas.

I meant identify as spam. Not identifying the identity of the sender. I
really don't care who tried to send the spam my server rejects. 


> | Seems to me as soon as advertisers identify themselves at delivery
> | the technology to reject them at the door step will be made
> | available to the public pretty fast.
> 
> 
> Which will make legitimate spam unprofitable, since nobody will ever
> recieve it, leading people to simply disobey the law, or find
> loopholes (like changing their name every other message).

Well, if they have to break the law to get around it that law seems to
do the work. Changing the name won't help if they obey the law and mark
the header. 

- Holger





More information about the PLUG mailing list