Subject: Re: FW: [Asrg] Anyone have the text on this bill?

From: "Devereaux" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:08:55 -0400

S. 877 actually is the Burns/Wyden bill.  Wyden is a cosponsor, along with Sens. Breaux (D-LA), Landrieu (D-LA), Stevens (R-AK), Thomas (R-WY), and Schumer (D-NY).  

As for text, you could keep trying thomas.loc.gov, or you could try here:  http://www.geocities.com/folic_acid_ttc/

Regards,

-Simon Devereaux

-----Original Message-----
From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 1:28 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Asrg] Anyone have the text on this bill?

>Senators' bill takes aim at spam
>
>Move would require return addresses from marketers
>
>Friday, April 11, 2003 Posted:  11:00 AM EDT (1500 GMT)
>WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Two U.S. senators introduced a bill on 
>Thursday seeking to cut down on "spam," the unwanted junk e-mail 
>that by some estimates accounts for 40 percent of e-mail traffic 
>worldwide.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/04/11/spam.bill.reut/index.html

I can find online is S.877 (A bill to regulate interstate commerce by 
imposing limitations and penalties on the transmission of unsolicited 
commercial electronic mail via the Internet.), but Wyden doesn't 
appear to be one of the sponsors and I don't have the text.

The article claims that it would require valid return addresses and 
require state AG's to sue on consumer's behalf (boy I'll bet they'll 
love that).
-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/          Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:53:45 -0400

Found it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c107:1:./temp/~c107B15RJW:e1153:

Note that it attempts to define consent.

>(1) AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT- The term `affirmative consent', when used 
>with respect to a commercial electronic mail message, means--
>
>(A) the message falls within the scope of an express and unambiguous 
>invitation or permission granted by the recipient and not 
>subsequently revoked;
>
>(B) the recipient had clear and conspicuous notice, at the time such 
>invitation or permission was granted, of--
>
>(i) the fact that the recipient was granting the invitation or permission;
>
>(ii) the scope of the invitation or permission, including what types 
>of commercial electronic mail messages would be covered by the 
>invitation or permission and
>
>what senders or types of senders, if any, other than the party to 
>whom the invitation or permission was communicated would be covered 
>by the invitation or permission; and
>
>(iii) a reasonable and effective mechanism for revoking the 
>invitation or permission; and
>
>(C) the recipient has not, after granting the invitation or 
>permission, submitted a request under section 5(a)(3) not to receive 
>unsolicited commercial electronic mail messages from the sender of 
>the message.

and

>(9) IMPLIED CONSENT- The term `implied consent', when used with 
>respect to a commercial electronic mail message, means--
>
>(A) within the 5-year period ending upon receipt of such message, 
>there has been a business transaction between the sender and the 
>recipient (including a transaction involving the provision, free of 
>charge, of information, goods, or services requested by the 
>recipient); and
>
>(B) the recipient was, at the time of such transaction or 
>thereafter, provided a clear and conspicuous notice of an 
>opportunity not to receive unsolicited commercial electronic mail 
>messages from the sender and has not exercised such opportunity.

it also defines return address as being more than just a temporary drop box:

>(7) Functioning return electronic mail address-
>
>(A) The term `functioning return electronic mail address' means a 
>legitimately obtained electronic mail address, clearly and 
>conspicuously displayed in a commercial electronic mail message, 
>that--
>
>(i) remains capable of receiving messages for no less than 30 days 
>after the transmission of such commercial electronic mail message; 
>and
>
>(ii) that has capacity reasonably calculated, in light of the number 
>of recipients of the commercial electronic mail message, to enable 
>it to receive the full expected quantity of reply messages from such 
>recipients.
>
>(B) An electronic mail address that meets the requirements of 
>subparagraph (A) shall not be excluded from this definition because 
>of a temporary inability to receive electronic mail messages due to 
>technical problems, provided steps are taken to correct such 
>technical problems within a reasonable time period.

There is an amusing exception to unsolicited email--namely notice of 
copyright or trademark violation.

On the false or misleading side of things, it says (among other things).

>(1) PROHIBITION OF FALSE OR MISLEADING TRANSMISSION INFORMATION- It 
>shall be unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission, to a 
>protected computer, of a commercial electronic mail message that 
>contains, or is accompanied by, header information that is 
>materially or intentionally false or misleading, or not legitimately 
>obtained.

So if you modify the headers of your email to make it look like it 
came from Outlook Express when it did not, it seems to me that might 
fall under this category.

In addition it has prohibitions against deceptive subject headers, 
not having a return address to which one can ask to be unsubscribed 
(hmm, that's not quite how mailing lists work).  It also requires:

>(5) INCLUSION OF IDENTIFIER, OPT-OUT, AND PHYSICAL ADDRESS IN 
>UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL- It shall be unlawful for any 
>person to initiate the transmission of any unsolicited commercial 
>electronic mail message to a protected computer unless the message 
>provides, in a manner that is clear and conspicuous to the 
>recipient--
>
>(A) identification that the message is an advertisement or solicitation;
>
>(B) notice of the opportunity under paragraph (3) to decline to 
>receive further unsolicited commercial electronic mail messages from 
>the sender; and
>
>(C) a valid physical postal address of the sender.

And, someone seems to be listening to the issue of whether this 
legitimizes other spam (e.g. non-commercial).

>(b) NO EFFECT ON POLICIES OF PROVIDERS OF INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE- 
>Nothing in this Act shall
>
>be construed to have any effect on the lawfulness or unlawfulness, 
>under any other provision of law, of the adoption, implementation, 
>or enforcement by a provider of Internet access service of a policy 
>of declining to transmit, route, relay, handle, or store certain 
>types of electronic mail messages.

and it has this follow-on

>Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this 
>Act, the Commission, in consultation with the Department of Justice 
>and other appropriate agencies, shall submit a report to the 
>Congress that provides a detailed analysis of the effectiveness and 
>enforcement of the provisions of this Act and the need (if any) for 
>the Congress to modify such provisions.

---

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 19:57:23 -0400

At 2:26 PM -0700 4/11/03, J C Lawrence wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:53:45 -0400
>Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>  Found it.
>Uhh, that's a temp URL, not a permanent link.  Its dead now.

Not to mention being the 2001 version.  Someone pointed me at an old 
one.  My bad.
-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/          Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society