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. 

  

 PerryLorier: It is not the content of the emails which is a problem, it is the number of them that cause the issue. Waking up and finding another 50 emails that are irrelevant to me if they are commercial in nature or not is my problem. 

  

 !! 8. Should the legislation extend to coverage of acts done overseas? If so, what acts should be covered? 

  

 zcat(1); 'follow the money' - If the the spam benefits a New Zealand 'entity', it should make no difference that they hired some kid in Romania to send their mail via hacked Chinese servers. The same applies if a New Zealander organises the spamming on behalf of an overseas client. And I personally feel that it should also apply if a New Zealander, through lack of appropriate care and computer maintenence, allows their computer to become a 'spam relay' for someone else.. 

  

 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? 

  

 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. 

  

 OliverJones: I do not agree. One should be able to be anonymous. But anonymous and bulk probably shouldn't go together. Also there are problems when it comes to computer generated emails. How do you identify them? 

  

 !! 14. Should there be a requirement for commercial electronic messages to include a statement to the effect that the recipient may use an electronic address set out in the message to send an unsubscribe message to the sender, and to ensure that such electronic address is functional? 

  

 JohnMcPherson: In practise, this doesn't work, because unethical people (such as those who spam) merely use such responses to confirm that their message was actually read by a human, and so that sender's valid address is of a higher "quality" compared to an address of unknown status. 

  

 !! 15. Should there be a requirement that commercial electronic messages provide accurate header and subject information? 

  

 PerryLorier: Yes. 

  

 MatthiasDallmeier: Yes, e-mail addresses should never be passed on to anyone without the expressed permission of their owner... 

  

 OliverJones: Matthias, that is unworkable. What if I get asked by a friend what another friend's email address is. Is it illegal for me to give him that address? I think that's pretty draconian. Email addresses should be treated just like phone numbers. Phone numbers get printed in a big book that you can easily acquire. This is highly useful and Internet users should have confidence that publishing their contact details does not result in "unsolicited unwanted" contact. However "unsolicited wanted" contacted should not be excluded. However I do think that the act of harvesting addresses in connection with breaking another law should probably be covered by legislation. However it would need to be fairly specific so as to avoid other legitimate reasons for collecting email addresses. Eg, creating a "whitepages" for email. 

  

 !! 18. Who should be able to bring an action against an alleged spammer? 

  

 MatthiasDallmeier: Anyone who is actually affected by their action.