RE: Junk mail and rotting web (SPAM)

James D. Wilson (
Tue, 2 Feb 1999 06:08:09 -1000

Hash: SHA1

Ever hear of Kevin Mitnick? He's been in jail for three (3) years now without trial.

As for authentication solutions etc. this is fine and good but until IPng it is not likely to fly because it requires every server to cooperate unless you want to isolate yourself from the net.

The law that makes the most sense is one prohibiting the transfer of the cost of the mailing from the sender to the intermediate networks and ultimately the end recipient. This is why the TCPA junk fax law has upheld to date. This type of law (cost transfer) will cover future types of situations such as people spamming your palm pilot or spamming your digital pager or even spamming your PCS phone. This is the type of law which was just submitted to the Texas Congress. Even California is considering additional laws because their original one just doesn't have enough teeth in it.

The only way you will be able to significantly reduce spam is to make it no longer profitable and worth the risk. You will always have some clueless chicken-boner spammers out there but we will be able to put it to a quick stop be it by LARTing the spammer or by terminating his access.

There is no one solution to the problem - it will take a combination of efforts to rid the net of +90% of this junk.

"non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem"

William of Ockham (1285-1347/49)

Michael S. Lorrey [] wrote:
>Sending email which claims to promote one kind of website when it
actually is
>linked to another type is also mail and wire fraud.

The mail and wire fraud laws are very, very good examples of why spamming
laws are a really bad idea. Just take a look sometime at the numerous cases
where these laws are used for things they were never intended to cover; back
when I kept up with the hacking press, it seemed that practically every US
hacker caught was charged with wire fraud with its high penalties, even
though the crime was never intended to apply to hacking.

>If a spammer can be charged for every one of the thousands or
>of spam messages they send, then they will be spending a lot of time
>prison (probably more than their entire adult life) and paying

Oh get real. Late time I checked the average murderer spent about eight
years in jail; you want to put spammers in jail for longer than murderers!?
Do you have any idea how much these kind of laws are screwing up the US
legal system? Next time someone's accused of spamming they'll just come
out shooting, because they'll have nothing to lose...

This list is really going downhill.


Version: PGP 6.0.2
Comment: Spammers are NetAbusers - Jail Them With The Other Criminals

iQA/AwUBNrci6TAufbtGOmgdEQLGMQCfaSvpfgv/C7LmVquLsnTw/g7wHuIAnjRY hjimu8ZdVvRsK9oi5ELSoAXL