Andreas Broeckmann on Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:31:06 +0200 (CEST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] Re: [RRE]Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2000

>[cross-posted from Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE).
> ]
>Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 01:41:00 -0500 (EST)
>From: Ray Everett-Church <>
>To: Spam-L List <spam-l@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
>Subject: MEDIA, COURT: Revised HR 3113 passed unanimously, heads to full
>In a unanimous voice vote today, the House Subcommitee on
>Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection substituted new
>language for HR 3113 and sent the bill to the full committee on
>The new bill language:
>* Outlaws forged headers, invalid return addresses.
>* The FCC from the original Wilson bill has been switched to FTC and
>has been radically changed to remove all "opt-out" list issues.
>* "Pandering e-mail" has been removed entirely.  The constitutional
>experts thought it would raise too many constitutional problems.
>The object of that section of the bill is addressed by expanding
>the definition of "commercial" e-mail to include spam that may not
>advertise a specific product, but advertises something of a commercial
>nature (e.g., a porn site that makes money selling banner ads).
>* If you have a business relationship with someone, you may send
>commercial email, however you must provide a means for them to rescind
>that relationship vis a vis future e-mail from them.  If you don't
>honor the request, you're spamming.
>* Spammers required to abide by ISP anti-spam policies (including SMTP
>banners).  Ignore the ISP's posted policy and you're nailed.
>* The bill also includes "identifiers" to facilitate filtering, to
>be prescribed by the FTC.  Yes... that's like "ADV" in the subject
>line or something similar, BUT... they are IN ADDITION to abiding by
>ISP policies, not in lieu of.  So in practice, what happens is that
>if an ISP doesn't have or enforce policies, users still have some
>means of at least identifying spam accurately.  It's an added burden
>on spammers, an added cause of action, yet doesn't place any onus of
>spam fighting on recipients or ISPs who are already given recourse via
>posted policies, etc., if they avail themselves of the opportunity.
>* ISPs who profit from allowing subscribers to be spammed, but who
>don't make reciept of UCE a condition of their service (such as free
>email services, free ISPs, etc.) must maintain an opt-out list for
>those customers who don't want to be spammed.  There is an exemption

Your message could not be posted to the Red Rock Eater News Service list
because posting is not allowed.

You are receiving this message because you attempted to send a message
directly to the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE) mailing list. Please
note that RRE is not a discussion list. Only the list editor can send
messages to RRE. If you have something that might be suitable for the
list, you are most welcome to send it to the list editor at
<>. Thanks very much.

Nettime-bold mailing list