> Is anyone familiar enough with it to know whether it is the right approach
> to the problem?
It's terrible. It says that spam has to have remove information somewhere
in the body, and that anyone can spam you until you tell them to stop.
Needless to say, this tells senders of scams, porn, whatever, that their
junk is now Officially Legal, so we can expect spam levels to skyrocket,
as they did in Korea when they passed a similar law. (Now you know why
you're all blocking mail from Korea.)
I don't understand where this bill is coming from; I don't know anyone who
likes it. I hear even the DMA isn't thrilled. But it has some very
influential senators behind it. For the full text and current status,
visit http://thomas.loc.gov and search for bill S.630. For comments, see
our note from last year on the CAUCE web site at
http://www.cauce.org/pressreleases/pr-s630.shtml. (The release is a year
old, but it's the same bill.)
It was scheduled for markup by the Senate Commerce, Science, and
Transportation subcommittee this morning.
If you run large mailing lists or an ISP or similar business, CALL your
senator, ask for the staffer who handles commerce bills, and tell them
concisely and politely how much spam is costing you, and whether you think
this bill will make things better or worse.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
References:
|
|
