Re: Responses to "Spam costs and questions" (long)

[dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)]

ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:

> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> > Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> writes:
> >
> > > -Declan
> > >
> > > (Who thinks that no consensual speech should be banned by the government.
> >
> > If you set up your mailbox to accept e-mail promiscuously from anyone,
> > then anything sent to it is "consentual".
> >
> > > I can, however, see a common law argument for spam as trespass after
> > > repeated cease-and-desist notes are sent.)
> >
> > The onus is on the recipient to filter out what they don't want (or to
> > "filter in" only what they want, which is how I think we'll end up). Such
> > filtering takes less time+effort than "repeated cease-and-desist notes".
>
> Is there any justification for a law that would require senders to make
> filtering easier, e.g., by attaching a [COMMERCIAL] tag to all UCEs.

And if the recipient gets UCE without such tags, he can sue, right?

As it is, there are a few dozen mentally disturbed folks who bombard
postmasters everywhere with false reports of "spamming" and "warez".

Now they'll complain about UCE without tags (w/o basis in reality)
and threaten to sue.

---

<a href="mailto:dlv@bwalk.dm.com">Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM</a>
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps