Mark, What law makes the harvesting of email addresses illegal? None that I know of.
-mel via cell > On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In message <[email protected]>, Mel Beckman > writes: >> Mark, >> >> The problem with your idea is that these NANOG attendee emails aren't >> illegal under CAN-SPAM. This toothless Act let's anyone email any address >> they want, however obtained, with virtually any content (except sexually >> explicit), as long as they don't use misleading headers, deceptive >> subject lines, or obscure the fact that the email is an ad. Those >> features, plus clear identification of the originator and an opt-out >> mechanism, let anyone send unlimited spam. > > The act of harvesting the email addresses is illegal which makes > the subsequent emails illegal even if they meet all the other > requirements of the CAN-SPAM act. > >> So, in reality, these so-called NANOG spammers are within the law. We >> just don't like what they're doing. >> >> We definitely can't sue them as you advise. In fact, individual CANT use >> under CAN-SPAM. Only we network operators can. >> >> Thanks for nothing, Congress. > > As someone with stonger local anti-spam legislation that has to put > up with the spam from US sources I have to agree. > > Mark > >> -mel via cell >> >>> On Jun 13, 2017, at 5:10 PM, Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> In message <[email protected]>, Mel >> Beckman writes: >>>> That still leaves the question: how to you invoke this financial >>>> punishment? Prohibit NANOG members from buying their products? >>> >>> Everyone that has received the email bring a action under the >>> CAN-SPAM act. Really if you don't want the list to be harvested, >>> which is illegal under the act, bring the action. Opt out doesn't >>> save the sender if they have already committed a illegal act. >>> >>> Mark >>> >>>> -mel via cell >>>> >>>>>> On Jun 13, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Rich Kulawiec <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:31:46PM +0000, Mel Beckman wrote: >>>>>> Sometimes they're ignorant and don't realize they're spamming. >>>>> >>>>> That excuse stopped being viable sometime in the last century. They >>>> know >>>>> exactly what they're doing, they're just counting on the prospective >>>>> gains to outweigh the prospective losses. If they're right, then the >>>>> spamming will not only continue, it will increase. (As we've seen: >>>>> over and over and over again.) That's because they don't care about >>>>> being professional or responsible or ethical: they only care about >>>> profits. >>>>> >>>>> So the choice is clear: either make it plain to such "people" (if I >>>>> may dignify sociopathic filth with that term) that this is absolutely >>>>> unacceptable and that it will have serious, immediate, ongoing >> negative >>>>> financial consequences, or do nothing while the problem escalates >>>>> indefinitely. >>>>> >>>>> If you give people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and >>>>> you take no action except to continue giving them the means to >>>>> hurt you, and they take no action except to keep hurting you, >>>>> then one of the ways you can describe the situation is "it isn't >>>>> scaling well". >>>>> --- Paul Vixie, on NANOG >>>>> >>>>> ---rsk >>> >>> -- >>> Mark Andrews, ISC >>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia >>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] > > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected]
