bulk postage fine (was Re: non-censorous spam control)

Adam Back aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk
Sat Aug 2 18:44:45 PDT 1997

David Formosa <dformosa at st.nepean.uws.edu.au> writes:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 1997, Adam Back wrote:
> > Next we choose a threshold say 1000 posts per day.  Seems hard to
> > imagine anyone generating manually over 1000 emails per day.  That's
> > more than 1 per minute for a 10 hour day.
> I bet this mailing list generates traffic of that order.  I would not wish
> to see legitimite mailing lists shut down to stop the spam.

The idea is that you would exempt from postage mailing lists and
people you know.

So what happens?  Spammers target mailing lists instead.  Already
happening to some extent.

Then what?  We have to use NoCems for mailing lists, or rating
services, or judicious use of the 'd' key.

> The best soultion given so far is Cause's suggestion of modifying
> the fax law so that we can sue the spammers.

Law, and suing and the internet don't mix.

Eg. Say I spam you via an anonymous remailer.  So now who are you
going to sue?

Spammers use remailers already.

So your suggest has dire consequences for remailers.

Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>

More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list