From: Vipul Ved Prakash <vipul@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 03:20:05 +0800
To: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Re: "Unwanted Mail"
In-Reply-To: <ae5e0391020210044711@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <199609131727.RAA00191@fountainhead.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


Timothy C. May wrote:
> But to attempt to define "SPAM" (unless you're Armour) is dangerous. This
> whole notion of "unwanted mail" is ill-defined and not something "the law"
> should get involved in, in my view. (And CP technologies certainly are
> consistent with this, e.g., placing the role of screening on those who set
> up gates, not on tracking down True Names for prosecution.)

I feel all "SPAM" related problems can be best addressed with a nice,
distributed reputation system which can hooked up with kill files etc.
Formal law is concerned with all kinds of physical and intellectual 
damages, and if SPAM can be categorised as physical/intellectual damage
then I see no reason why "the law" shouldn't interrupt. The problem
is that though the net believes in informal law, there is hardly any 
informal jurisdiction.  

- Vipul



-- 

Vipul Ved Prakash                 | - Electronic Security & Crypto 
vipul@pobox.com 	          | - Internet & Intranets 
91 11 2247802                     | - Web Development & PERL 
198 Madhuban IP Extension         | - Linux & Open Systems 
Delhi, INDIA 110 092              | - (Networked) Multimedia