Sheryl Coppenger wrote:
[somebody else wrote]
> > I'm not disagreeing with this point. _As I stated,_ if you don't
> > want to receive anonymous email, _legitimate_ remailer services will block
> > you from receiving it through them. The proposal that I'm disagreeing with is
> > for requiring that all email of a given type be non-anonymous... not AOL's,
> > or anyone else's, right to not receive mail the person or organization does
> > not want. Currently, neither the U.S. government nor other governments pay
> > for email; therefore, they have no juristiction under the idea in question.
> Why do you think the government only has jurisdiction over things it
> pays for? You keep talking about *legitimate* services -- what protects
> people from the illegitimate ones?
I agree with you on that, except for possibly that one person's
"legitimate" is another person's "illegitimate," but one point
overlooked by everyone so far is that the governments undoubtedly
*do* pay for email. Do they get free computers, disks, and
connectivity that no-one else does? I think not.
In fact, I shudder to think what the U.S. government may be paying
for email, given what they've paid in the past for hammers and
toilet seats, never mind stealth bombers.
> > I have some problems with all of these limits, with the exception
> > of the continuing to send communications to someone who has requested
> > otherwise (or without a mechanism to stop receiving it... which isn't the
> > case with legitimate remailer services. Spam is not an excuse to ban all
> > anonymous email, including anonymous commercial email). I have no problems
> > with a requirement that someone be able to stop receiving such email; such
> > does not entail a ban on anonymous email.
> My feeling about it is that until such time that the people sending the
> mail pay for the costs involved, no unsolicited mass mailing should be legal.
> Unsolicited faxes were banned on the grounds that it cost more for the
> receiver than the sender. It seems to me the same should be the case here.
> I don't care that much whether or not just email is anonymous. I just don't
> want to receive it.
My feeling is that I don't even want to send someone an email after
receiving a commercial spam and tell them "don't send me any more."
Someone else just scoops email addresses from wherever and does it
again from a different address, or maybe the spammer just "moves"
after too many requests and hits me again.
My time is money too. As you said, "I just don't want to receive it."
I don't mind the idea of *one* request to a central location that
*all* spammers must observe (sort of like the place that people can
request no junk mail), and that this one request would be good for all
time. But I don't think that would work well.
Maybe even better would be a required RFC822-style header:
Advertisement: (insert keywords here)
which would let users filter with appropriate tools. Examples:
Advertisement: computers hardware software viruses
Advertisement: cars autos auto-parts
Advertisement: green-card alien citizenship
(Mailing lists, just to get this back on topic -- are we sufficiently
off-topic yet? -- could then just ignore anything with the
Advertisement: header altogether.)
It might even be advisable to put something in the SMTP protocol
that says, in effect, "This message contains an Advertisement: header"
and a response that says "We refuse to handle Advertisement: headers".
Advertisers who failed to provide this header could then potentially
be treated the same as those who send unsolicited fax ads.
Stan Ryckman (stanr @