On Tue, 14 Feb 1995 12:34:24 EST, Geert K. Marien wrote: > Second, spamming is a process that is unique to computers. Not entirely--something very much like it has been done with FAX machines (now an actionable offense in most states), and automated telemarketing (now an actionable offense at the Federal level). >The spammers are the ones that we should go after Agreed > a) You would be VERY hard pressed to prove actual damages; Au contraire. I personally use an account paid for by my employer, but my employer pays real money for the Internet link and would have little difficulty producing a per byte cost allocation. NUMEROUS users of NETNEWS and other services pay their providers individually, by the byte. They'd have little trouble demonstating actual damages. > b) You would have to make a strong case to say why spamming is or > should be illegal. Just to say that you don't like it or that > it is off-topic on a list IS NOT enough! Theft of service already is a reasonable case. The analysis of the costs of spamming (that I forwarded to my Congressman) posted a few days ago makes a strong case. > c) You would have to show malicious intent AND/OR that the person > KNEW BEFOREHAND that this would evoke a negative reaction. Deliberate forgery approval headers for moderated groups looks like pretty good evidence to me. >It is their agreement that would be legally binding first. Which is why every spammer so far has had their access canceled--spamming violates terms of service agreements. > Lastly, as I see it, all our sites agree to exchange mail. This >means, in effect, that we will accept anything from anyone in exchange >for the right to send out the same. Pretty much like a fax machine connected to a telephone, but junk fax already is illegal. > If we start to get into what is banned or not, we run the same risks >that we are now facing in the country: banning and censoring at will and >losing the freedom we cherish. No one proposes to censor content. Spamming is a process of sending identical messages to thousands of newgroups. The proposal is to impose penalties for that process for ANY message (not just advertising). De facto, what's happening is that code already is in place on the backbone that is becoming increasingly effective at detecting and cancelling identical messages posted to large numbers of newgroups and lists. Hence, the legislative issue may be moot. /s Murphy A. Sewall <[log in to unmask]> (203) 486-2489 voice Professor of Marketing (203) 486-5246 fax