cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-06-07 - Re: Responses to “Spam costs and questions” (long)

Header Data

From: ichudov@Algebra.COM (Igor Chudov @ home)
To: devnull@manifold.algebra.com
Message Hash: 062cf31a720657d161bcd6e1a5fded23d2bb75840ce392bdee2e3c4098426b2b
Message ID: <199706070424.XAA27671@manifold.algebra.com>
Reply To: <BFTw8D32w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-07 04:38:23 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 12:38:23 +0800

Raw message

From: ichudov@Algebra.COM (Igor Chudov @ home)
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 12:38:23 +0800
To: devnull@manifold.algebra.com
Subject: Re: Responses to "Spam costs and questions" (long)
In-Reply-To: <BFTw8D32w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Message-ID: <199706070424.XAA27671@manifold.algebra.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



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.

	- Igor.

Thread