>Given that the Internet is a cooperative anarchy, who could enforce >any such rules?
>That's one reason there are now so many blocklists: everybody can have >his own, and everybody can decide which one(s) to use. That's where the term 'responsible' comes into it. That term implies that the blocklisters should do it because it's the right thing to do, not because some overlord is forcing them to. >That's contract law, which is already present. The ISP just has to >write the contract correctly. Just because the law is present doesn't mean it's being put into effect. The government and the people of this country could require better performance from the ISPs but putting specific laws in place rather than adding the burden to the ISP's legal expenses to address the problem. It might be much more likely to produce a solution that way. > I know Florida has no laws that make spamming illegal >So what? Painting your apartment green isn't illegal, but many leases >prohibit doing that. But if states have laws (which citizens can propse for free rather than incurring the cost of attorneys) making it illegal to spam it takes that negotiaion out of the hands of the ISP and simply makes it a requirement rather than a possibility that *could* be accomplished at the (cost-prohibitive) expense of the ISPs. _______________________________________________ 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]
