>So "right thing to do" is here defined as "what Patrice M. Coles >wants"?
No. Neither is it defined as "what Seth Breidbart wants" nor as "people who create blocklists don't care about what you like". My definition would involve working toward accomplishing a goal rather than just doing things with complete disregard for the damage they cause to innocent victims who had *nothing to do* with spamming. >The ISP is allowed to make a contract prohibiting spam. How is the >law not being in effect? Saying that you can't spam someone and proving that you are and getting them legally off your network involve very different levels of work. Some ISPs (including Bellsouth) say they prohibit spam. The problem is that they recognize that everything isn't just "Yes, you're spamming from my subnet so I'm just going to refuse to service anyone on the whole subnet and anyone who wasn't really spamming will just be victimized any way regardless of whether they had anything to do with it or not." They have a greater responsiblilty to their customers than to the blocklisters who are willing to victimize people who had nothing to do with the situation just because it's too cumbersome to be a little more conscientious about it. >I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting >that a particular business model be legislated? No, I'm suggesting that we start by making spam illegal and put punishments in place for those who spam as well as those who knowingly allow continued spamming. >In any case, what happens when other countries have other laws? We address it the same way we do everything else. Try to make them aware of the problems and get them to address them as well. >Yes, it's easy to propose laws for approximately free. It doesn't do >any good, but you can propose them. You can make anything a self-fulfilling prophecy with that attitude. >There would still have to be enforcement. Yes, that's the same with any law. That's the way our government is set up. >Most ISPs already prohibit spamming. But this clearly hasn't resolved the problem, so obviously something else is needed. >It doesn't appear to be cost-prohibitive for ISPs ranging from very >small (e.g. Panix) to very large (e.g. AOL) to prohibit spamming. Except that since we still have a spam problem, it doesn't appear to be cost-prohibitive for ISPs to *ineffecitvely* prohibit spamming. _______________________________________________ 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]
