Re: remailer spam throttle

[Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 10:46 PM 3/24/97 -0500, Andy Dustman wrote:
>The first idea, which I've mentioned before, is requiring users to "sign" 
>a user agreement (magic cookie exchange) before they can send or receive
>messages. This agreement basically states that the operator does not
>monitor or filter based on content, and cannot trace messages back to the
>original sender, and thus is not liable under US law for contents (check
>some of the CDA provisions); and that the user is wholly responsible for
>the legality of any messages sent.

I think there are two broad models of complaints/problems with remailers:

1. The recipient is angry because they received a message they didn't like.
(because it's an advertisement, or it's rude, or it's an image that their
parents didn't like ..) 

2. A third party is angry because the sender sent some information to the
recipient which the third party thinks should not have been sent. (copyright,
trademark, defamation, tortious interference with [prospective] contract,
etc.) 

Your "contract" model (which looks like you really mean it to be a waiver of
warranty/damages and/or an indemnification agreement) addresses (1) to the
point of overkill, but it doesn't reach (2), because there's no contract with
the third party, who is the party who's likely to be filing suit.
(Indemnification by the sender might work, if you worded the contract
correctly - but then you've got to abandon anonymity, and the value of
indemnification from person you don't know whose assets/finances are unknown
is pretty low.)

Further, some fraction of the messages causing concern are message sent or
available to minors .. whose contracts (modulo some exceptions) are voidable
at their option. :(

>The second idea, which I want to implement in conjunction with the above,
>is to insert a disclaimer in the message body at the top of the message
>with the important points (and references to) the user agreement,
>including how to block messages. There would be a mechanism for clueful
>users to disable this for messages they receive. 

This also works better for messages which are bothersome because of (1), but
not (2). You can't, as a general rule, evade a duty imposed by law by posting
signs saying "I'm not subject to a duty imposed by law." If it was that easy,
we'd all be driving cars marked "GET OUT OF MY WAY, I'M NOT LIABLE IF I DRIVE
INTO YOU". (Of course, such signs are still useful, if they trick people into
not even thinking about suing someone who's got such a sign .. :) 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5

iQEVAgUBMzehnv37pMWUJFlhAQF/Jwf/QXgM9arbu4ERP4HwcNciKxfLLJFu7/0e
yLEmuh0Nh7Ici0DbTtHK25ff8q/IHHMPZwuaNE9fXRhgewMvZKLrRXicBjpLisZE
3xjbuUwfqghyf9isa0vV6gOuGeZrzA10qqBFhze+kqkBN3qgT6Zk6c2xbT6rBxeA
TaD4Nwpg0xBKjHZjP8IYeYOIxN0zEpa3YTV4PSWKieHj71nfpa7B4FUiPHWZUOqA
x+p3oDV6dBkkkvxpASU5ifhTl0eRVO+xSidOZz6rF+cKyIELrk1A9j3BbdiwfyUy
jmr/0kin8OEqEkvOSQ1SJipEvEQbhauMMzoKLpVwngdO3ErX1SB6gg==
=QSem
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Greg Broiles                | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell:
gbroiles@netbox.com         | 
http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.
                            |