RE: Spam

James D. Wilson (
Fri, 5 Feb 1999 05:19:51 -1000

Hash: SHA1

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of
> NetSurfer [] wrote:
> >First off laws which allow for the prosecution of businesses which
> >advertise via spam has absolutely *nothing* to do with encryption
> >anonymity with the exception that the use of falsified headers IN
> >treated as the fraud it is.
> So spam sent through anonymous remailers will be totally legal
> the remailer puts a 'real' email address on the message? Spam from
> email addresses will be totally legal? Gee, that will really reduce
> amount of spam I get.

Spam sent through anonymous remailers will not be totally legal; while spam sent through anonymous remailers will not violate sections of antispam laws which mandate authentic headers, that same spam will still violate cost transfer clauses or trespassing clauses or theft of service clauses of those same laws.

> >Well the law has been in place for a number
> >of years, and has upheld on appeals, and you are still able to
> >your freedom of speech (except by sending unsolicited faxes to
> people) and you still have anonymity
> Duh, that law requires every fax to include a valid telephone number
> it was sent from. It *bans* fax anonymity. Get a clue sometime.

Ad hominem again. No, what I was trying to say is that the "domino effect" or "slippery slope" argument that passing the junk fax law would end privacy and anonymity and collapse commercial use of electronic communications simply did not happen. And yes, there were people making the same argument against the junk fax law as you make against junk email law i.e. the end of anonymity, creation of a police state, violation of my "free speach (tm)" etc.

> >This is simply anti-theft and anti-netabuse legislation. If you
are not
> >stealing from people and hijacking other peoples mail servers and
> >feeds you have nothing to fear.
> Bullshit. Anyone who wants anonymity and privacy on the Net has
> to fear from fanatics like you and Mike. If spam is legal when
> sent through
> anonymous remailers then spammers will just use them. If it's not,
> anonymous remailers will be shut down completely and utterly, and
> will be no more anonymity on the Net.

Ad hominem again. See paragraph 1 above; these laws do not ban the use of anonymous remailers. They usually have clauses that state that there are additional fines/punishments for falsifying headers in UCE/UBE. It does not state that UCE/UBE with valid headers is legal. For example, in the Texas bill under consideration there are one level of penalties for simply sending UCE/UBE. If you send UCE/UBE *and* falsify headers, for example, by making it look like AOL or Juno or Hotmail were the senders, it adds additional penalties on top of the simple UCE/UBE penalties. This is like the difference between robbery and armed robbery. Armed robbery usually carries stronger penalties than simple robbery. UCE/UBE with false headers will carry higher penalties than UCE/UBE with valid headers. Remember that when the spammers try and make the spam look like it was sent by a non-involved third party, it damages the reputation of that third party business. In fact one of the tactics the spammers use for retribution against anti-'s is to send out glaringly abusive fake UCE/UBE which looks like it was sent by the anti- (includes the anti-'s email address, ISP, phone #, street address, etc) so that the anti- will get grief/threats/etc. from the spammed recipients. On NANAE or FREE or SPAM-L this is known as being "Joed."

> >Talk to the owners of the ISP's who have
> >had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just to protect their
> >networks from the criminals and ask them what they think of
spamming and
> >about laws to curb it.
> As far as I'm aware, I'm the only person on this list who's had to
> days dealing with spammer attacks on his domain. And I'm the one
> arguing against rabid, abusive anti-spam laws. You just don't seem
> have a clue as to what you're asking for.

Ad hominem again. Every person on this list has already been the victim of spamming as spam seems to make it through to the list periodically. Furthermore I have had to deal with spammer attacks on my domains - that's why I started doing something about it instead of just deleting it or ignoring it. I responded by (1) customizing smap and smapd from the fwtk (2) implementing tcpd (3) utilizing ORBS, ORCA, the RBL, DSSL, (4) by joining anti-spam lists and (5) by lobbying for stronger laws against UCE/UBE.

> >I prefer
> >arguments of logic rather than insulting the people I'm carrying on
> >dialogue with - its much more effective.
> Then give us some logic. Answer some questions. Stop making
> which have no basis in reality. And stop claiming that you're the
> guys and we're supporting the "evil" spammers, when you're trying to
> enforce a police state on the Net. Erase the anti-spam fanatic memes
> from your head and start dealing with reality.

Ad hominem again. I have given you logic. I have answered your one question above and replied to your many statements as well.

An anti-spam law does not result in a police state on the net any more than the junk fax law resulted in a police state on the telephone network.

> Mark

"non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem"

William of Ockham (1285-1347/49)

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