Subject: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail

From: Lillian Komlossy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:57:04 -0400

http://www.dmnews.com/articles/2000-06-12/8879.html
<http://www.dmnews.com/articles/2000-06-12/8879.html> 

Lillian Komlossy || Site Manager || http://www.dmnews.com
<http://www.dmnews.com/>  || http://www.imarketingnews.com
<http://www.imarketingnews.com/>  || 212 925-7300 ext. 232 ||
mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:37:55 -0400

yeah, the bill contains language like

"Unsolicited commercial electronic mail can be an important mechanism
through which businesses advertise and attract customers in the online
environment."

this bill isn't designed to limit spam; it's designed to make it legal.

criminals.

Keith

---

From: Doug Isenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:03:50 -0400

>this bill isn't designed to limit spam; it's designed to make it legal.

         In the interest of providing both sides of the story, it should be 
noted that the bill also contains language like:

         "The receipt of unsolicited commercial electronic mail may result 
in costs to recipients who cannot refuse to accept such mail and who incur 
costs for the storage of such mail, or for the time spent accessing, 
reviewing, and discarding such mail, or for both."

and

         "Unsolicited commercial electronic mail may impose significant 
monetary costs on interactive computer services, businesses, and 
educational and nonprofit institutions that carry and receive such mail, as 
there is a finite volume of mail that such providers, businesses, and 
institutions can handle without further investment. The sending of such 
mail is increasingly and negatively affecting the quality of service 
provided to customers of interactive computer service, and shifting costs 
from the sender of the advertisement to the interactive computer service."

         I've yet to read the whole bill (H.R. 3113), but I suspect (or, at 
least, hope) that the politicians behind this legislation are intending to 
draft a federal law that, unlike at least two state attempts, will survive 
a constitutional challenge.

=======================
Douglas M. Isenberg
Attorney @ Law
Editor & Publisher, GigaLaw.com
=======================
GigaLaw.com: "Legal Information for
Internet and Technology Professionals"
http://www.GigaLaw.com
=======================

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:35:23 -0400

>a constitutional challenge.

And I hope that the courts will finally realize that freedom of speech 
includes the freedom not to have your communications disrupted by people 
who want to sell you things.

Keith

---

From: Chip Rosenthal <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:18:44 -0500

> who want to sell you things.

The biggest problem with the bill, as it currently reads, is that the
transport notification has been dropped.  There was an ID by Hoffman
and Levine (I believe since expired, can't find it now) that allowed
an organization to "opt out" from unsolicited commercial email by
indicating so in the SMTP banner.

For instance ...

220 garcon.unicom.com ESMTP Sendmail [NO UCE, C=US, L=TX]; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:11:02 -0500 (CDT)

Although "opt out" in general is evil, this actually is quite nice.  The
organization need opt out only once (in the SMTP banner), and the effect
should be immediate.

The bottom line is that although the bill has some unsavory aspects (hey,
this is politics, dontcha know), it is well intended, and restoral of the
banner notification could be a serious tool in the fight against junk
email.

-- 
Chip Rosenthal <[email-masked]>                      http://www.unicom.com/
Protect your mail server against spam.                http://mail-abuse.org/
Junk email is theft.  There ought to be a law.        http://www.cauce.org/
Preserve the monopoly & protect innovation: BSoD, paper clip, email worms, ...

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:01:24 -0400

> banner notification could be a serious tool in the fight against junk

sure, but there's no way the DMA is going to let that happen.
they'll water down the bill (as they have done) to make it almost
completely ineffective at stopping spam.  their idea is to raise
the bar for spam just enough that maybe the porn merchants can't use it
but folks trying to sell you soap or cars or whatever can use it. 

and the folks who supported the compromise (in the name of trying to
get *some* bill passed) end up having to support a bill that actually
makes the situation worse. 

Keith

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:05:34 -0700

>who want to sell you things.

I dunno, Keith. What you are asking for is content control - you are saying 
that certain content shouldn't get to you. Usually, you are asking that 
content not be controlled in any way.

But I have to say that this particular thread is fairly far afield of 
anything resembling an engineering topic. Would it be too onerous to ask 
that it be moved to a free-speech-includes-or-does-not-include-advertising 
discussion list?

---

From: Mike Truskowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:38:53 PDT

Wow, an example of what Keith is asking for ... free speech
without having to hear it...

I vote for Fred's idea, I was tired of it last week.

mike

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:20:29 -0400

> content not be controlled in any way.

actually I'd settle for well-defined mandatory labelling - at the SMTP
level for big volume spammers and at the 822 level for everyone.
 
> that it be moved to a free-speech-includes-or-does-not-include-advertising 

the relevance to IETF is that Congress, with the encouragement of
the DMA, is pushing technically poor solutions.  and IETF is the 
biggest store of technical expertise in Internet mail.

whether IETF itself would want to send a message to Congress is
something I hadn't yet thought about.  it might be a good idea.

but even if IETF as an organization didn't want to do this it's 
certainly not unusual for IETF to act via its individual members 
rather than as an organization.

Keith

---

From: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:07:21 -0500

> level for big volume spammers and at the 822 level for everyone.

Perhaps a future First Lady Tipper Gore will try to help you out
there, as she did for the consumers of recorded music.

Around here, we've been warned against sending "profane content" by
people who obviously don't know the meaning of "profane".

---

From: Mark Atwood <[email-masked]>
Date: 19 Jun 2000 15:33:44 -0700

> indicating so in the SMTP banner.

Rescap Profile for Mail User Agents
draft-hoffman-rescap-mua-02.txt
November 20, 1999

-- 
Mark Atwood   | It is the hardest thing for intellectuals to understand, that
[email-masked] | just because they haven't thought of something, somebody else
              | might. <http://www.friesian.com/rifkin.htm>
http://www.pobox.com/~mra

---

From: "James Wilson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:53:24 -0700

Unsolicited bulk or commercial email.  Fairly straightforward. 
Unsolicited, as in you did not ask to receive it.  Bulk, as in sent to
masses of people, including but not limited to "repent ye sinners" and
"fund my charity" or "vote for me."  Commercial, as in intended to
generate income directly or indirectly.  Basically any form of
cost-shifted advertisement, profit or non-profit.

The issue is that if you want to blast out your ad, whatever the
content, you should not make other people i.e. the intermediary
networks/hijacked relays and end recipients, pay for transporting and
receiving the ad.  

The problem is that so long as there are ISP's who knowingly provide
services to the spammers including hosting websites when the spammers
spam via separate providers, there will be volume spam.  If every US
provider, including those providing transit service outside of the US,
refused to peer/do business with providers who allow spammers on their
network/host websites for spammers and sent those feeds to null0, spam
could be reduced significantly.    If those providers' feeds were
blocked from the US backbone until they canned the spam they might put
a stop to it on their side of the pond.  Right now a large percentage
of the spam is being relayed by servers external to the US,
particularly from .jp and .kr and Telstra/Big Pond in .au.  Most of
the websites themselves are being hosted in the US by providers who
won't nuke a site that is spamvertized.

Radical, perhaps.  A technical solution, yes.  If you don't want laws,
you need a technical solution.  If you don't want technical solutions
like the RBL (blocking feeds,) then pass laws to punish the
spamhaus/spamophiles/Rodonas of the net and the providers who enable
their spew.  One way or another something has to be done, as the
spammers and their providers are killing email as a viable business
medium with its (spams) negative halo effect, and everyone is paying
for it except the spammers and their providers.

- -
James D. Wilson, CCDA, MCP
"non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem"
William of Ockham (1285-1347/49)

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of
Mark Atwood
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 3:34 PM
To: Chip Rosenthal
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail

- -- 
Mark Atwood   | It is the hardest thing for intellectuals to
understand, that
[email-masked] | just because they haven't thought of something,
somebody else
              | might. <http://www.friesian.com/rifkin.htm>
http://www.pobox.com/~mra