[eff-austin] Antispam Bills: Worse Than Spam?

Thomas Shaddack shaddack at ns.arachne.cz
Fri Aug 1 20:33:27 PDT 2003


On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Doug wrote:

> I will continue to support legislation and other methods to transfer the cost of
> advertising back to the advertiser.  If there are enforceable penalties for
> fraudulent message headers and routing, so be it.  If the legislation forces
> dissidents and whistleblowers to use postal mail, so much the better.  I do not
> agree that these so-called "freedoms" need to be at my expense.

It's fairly possible, if the adversary know what he's doing and takes the
time and effort, to disguise the mail's origin pretty well. (Think eg.
open HTTPS proxies or a hacked box.) Now, you irked someone. That someone
forges a spam mail advertising your business.

Prove your innocence!

> Legitimate email - deliver as intended.   non-legitimate email - block the
> connection at the server.

Do we need laws for that? Software is easier to upgrade/change than laws,
less likely to misfire, and easier to deal with when it misfires.

Laws won't help in recognizing legitimate and non-legitimate mail.
Artificial intelligence will be more effective than the Congress. (On the
other hand, *anything* is usually more effective than the Congress.)

The law in question will be TOO easy to use as a weapon.





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list