Subject: Re: Spam Blockage on AOL From: Vin Crosbie Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 19:48:50 -0400
How the Web Was Won
Subject: Re: Spam Blockage on AOL From: Vin Crosbie Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 19:48:50 -0400
Sender: owner-online-news@marketplace.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 12:26 PM 9/5/96 -0400, Don 'DocDon' Taylor  wrote:
>    There are two flaws to this program. One is that spammers can quickly
>and inexpensively acquire a new domain; the other is that it may restrict
>legitimate email. But David Phillips, associate general counsel at AOL,
>said the company says: "Could it potentially restrict a legitimate E-mail?
>Yes. Is that the price that members appear willing to pay to put a limit
>on the number of junk E-mails that they receive? I think overwhelmingly
>that's the case." (I wonder how many he surveyed and what his methods
>were?)

A few years ago, the U.S. Congress enacted US Code 47, Chapter 5, Section
227, which bans unsolicited, pre-recorded voice telemarketing and bans
unsolicited broadcast fax transmissions. The Congress enacted this
legislation when it decided that these new voice and fax technologies tipped
the balance of power between marketers and consumers too much in favor of
marketers. The technologies dramatically increased the numbers of uninvited
solicitations any marketer could transmit, without providing consumers an
equivalent technological check or balance.

The *intent* of US 47-5-227 would appear to ban email spams. However, the
law was enacted before U.S. consumer usage of email was prevalent and it
doesn't specifically mention email, a loophole through which spammers claim
escape.

I hope (and I also speak for my company, a provider of consumer email
services) that the U.S. Congress amends this law specifically to ban email
spams. This would at least eliminate U.S.-based spams, though probably have
no effect against U.S.-directed spams which could just as easily be launched
from any other country. Would U.S. spammers simply move outside U.S.
borders? Would a U.S. law have any deterent effect against spams launched to
the U.S. from other countries? Would such a law help deter spams aimed at
consumers in other countries? I wonder what the answers are to these questions.
_________________________________________________
Vin Crosbie         Freemark Communications, Inc.
        Director of Content Development
crosbie@freemark.com      125 CambridgePark Drive
(617) 492-6600 x211       Cambridge, MA 02140 USA
(617) 492-6622 fax        http://www.freemark.com
-------------------------------------------------

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
This message was posted to ONLINE-NEWS. http://www.planetarynews.com/o-n.html

From owner-online-news@marketplace.com Sun Sep  8 23:12:20 1996
Received: from marketplace.com (majordom@marketplace.com [206.168.5.232]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA22873 ; for ; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 23:12:19 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA03476 for online-news-outgoing; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 18:40:52 -0600
Received: from server.indra.com (server.indra.com [204.144.142.2]) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA03470 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 18:40:47 -0600
Received: from indra.com by server.indra.com (8.7.4/Spike-8-1.0)
	id SAA26102; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 18:27:09 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from mail.zipnet.net by indra.com (8.7.4/Spike-8-1.0)
	id SAA05180; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 18:27:08 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from online-info (ip70-max1-fitch.zipnet.net [199.232.245.70]) by mail.zipnet.net (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA07147 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 20:27:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199609090027.UAA07147@mail.zipnet.net>