At 09:27 AM 05/30/2002 -0700, B0b Jay wrote:
>S630 seeks to outlaw fraud and thats a good thing, but it does NOT
>address the real problem here and that is the unsolicited nature of the
>email advertising.
The bill is actually significantly worse than that. The beginning of its
problems is that it sets an opt-out standard, so you still have to spend
the time replying to opt-out. This assumes not only that your volume is low
enough that opting-out to every spam is possible (mine's not), but assumes
other things such as the spammer being able to keep an email address for
several weeks, and that all the recipients speak English so they can
understand the opt-out instructions.
Korea announced an opt-out standard in January. 3 Months later the volume
of spam originating in Korea had increased by 1000%. So the Korean
experience strongly suggests that this bill will increase the volume of
spam dramatically, and in a very short amount of time.
The bill would also be in direct conflict with Europe which set an opt-in
standard overnight.
Another huge problem is that the bill specifically preempts any State law
that is more strict, so for example the Connecticut law, which is an opt-in
law, would become inoperative.
___________________________________________________________________________
WARNING: DO NOT add my email address to any mailing list or
database without my PRIOR, EXPLICIT permission.
Fight spam in Australia - Join CAUBE.AU - http://www.caube.org.au/
Troy Rollo, Technical Director, CorVu Australasia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
spamcon-general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.spamcon.org/mailman/listinfo/spamcon-general#subscribers
Subscribe, unsubscribe, etc: Use the URL above or send "help" in body
of message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact administrator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
