ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> writes:
-Declan
(Who thinks that no consensual speech should be banned by the government.
If you set up your mailbox to accept e-mail promiscuously from anyone, then anything sent to it is "consentual".
I can, however, see a common law argument for spam as trespass after repeated cease-and-desist notes are sent.)
The onus is on the recipient to filter out what they don't want (or to "filter in" only what they want, which is how I think we'll end up). Such filtering takes less time+effort than "repeated cease-and-desist notes".
Is there any justification for a law that would require senders to make filtering easier, e.g., by attaching a [COMMERCIAL] tag to all UCEs.
And if the recipient gets UCE without such tags, he can sue, right? As it is, there are a few dozen mentally disturbed folks who bombard postmasters everywhere with false reports of "spamming" and "warez". Now they'll complain about UCE without tags (w/o basis in reality) and threaten to sue. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps