Differences between version 21 and revision by previous author of LegislatingAgainstSpam.
Other diffs: Previous Major Revision, Previous Revision, or view the Annotated Edit History
| Newer page: | version 21 | Last edited on Friday, May 28, 2004 7:49:47 pm | by zcat(1) | Revert |
| Older page: | version 20 | Last edited on Friday, May 28, 2004 7:06:28 pm | by OliverJones | Revert |
@@ -60,8 +60,10 @@
zcat(1): BULK and UNSOLICITED should be the only criteria, commercial makes no difference whatsoever. I would be just as annoyed if I was being sent religious, charity, or political bulk mail.
MatthiasDallmeier: I disagree with Perry and possibly also Bruce depending on the definition of "bulk", because it makes no difference to me how many recipients also received an unwanted message. Anyway, my answer to this question is a definite NO.
+
+zcat(1): I think this is a very silly arguement. If the 200-odd spammers in the ROKSO database were to restrict themselves to sending just ten or twenty emails a day, the chance of ever recieving even ONE spam in your lifetime would be comparable to the chance of winning lotto. BULK is the problem.
OliverJones: No. A user is annoyed by the spam existing in their inbox. Not by the fact that it also got sent to 2 million other inboxes. The quantity of emails is only of concern to ISP's or organizations that process the mail as it is delivered as this effects their quality of service to customers or costs money in handling problems internally.
!! 7. Should the messages caught by the legislation be of a commercial advertising and promotional nature only or should other types of messages be caught? Should there be exceptions and if so what should be exempted? Exempting from political parties, religious groups and charities seems to not solve the problem. Spam would still be spam if I was being spammed by religious groups.
@@ -82,14 +84,17 @@
PerryLorier: Opt-out is unlikely to work as spammers have used "Opt-out" approaches to harvest valid email addresses, and users are reluctant to use it even if it is available due to the risk of recieving even more spam. Opt-in has issues with viruses or malicious people forging email and subscribing you to spam without your consent. Double opt in seems to be the only reliable way of determining peoples true intentions.
MatthiasDallmeier: Double opt-in, because it is the only way to ensure that someone does in fact want to be "spammed". Opt-in could be abused by third parties. Opt-out would be equivalent to allowing spam and therefore a complete waste of time.
+
+zcat(1): Double-opt-in only. The 'confirm' message should contain information that identifies the sender, clearly traces the web form submission or message which invoked it (IP address, mail headers, etc), and lists the name, origin, and purpose of the mailing list. It should not contain anything else that could be considered 'advertising'.
!! 11. If an opt-in or double opt-in approach was to be adopted, what should amount to express consent and what actions and/or relationships should amount to inferred consent to the sending of a "commercial" electronic message?
!! 12. How should the scope of any opt-in or double opt-in assent be framed?
-zcat(1): Double-opt-in
only. The 'confirm' message
should contain information that identifies
the sender
, clearly traces
the web form submission or message which invoked it (IP
address, mail headers, etc), and lists the name, origin, and purpose of the mailing list. It should not contain anything else that could be considered 'advertising'
.
+zcat(1): "This list
only"
. Every mailing
should clearly come from
the same company
, preferably from
the same
address.
+
!! 13. Should there be a requirement for commercial electronic messages to accurately identify the sender of the message? If so, what constitutes accurate identification (e.g. name and physical address, name and email address)?
PerryLorier: This should be a requirement for all commercial communications that they have obvious and accurate sender information. Commercial or not, it should be illegal to send mail as someone you are not.
