1997-08-03 - Re: bulk postage fine (was Re: non-censorous spam control)

Header Data

From: Charles <apache@bear.apana.org.au>
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Message Hash: e0b5cd1ff67909ffd0425a702d0c269070b1be5d38597b4c8c146556e1b6d352
Message ID: <199708030552.PAA05934@bear.apana.org.au>
Reply To: <Pine.LNX.3.93.970803062838.108B-100000@shirley>
UTC Datetime: 1997-08-03 05:59:29 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 13:59:29 +0800

Raw message

From: Charles <apache@bear.apana.org.au>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 13:59:29 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: bulk postage fine (was Re: non-censorous spam control)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.93.970803062838.108B-100000@shirley>
Message-ID: <199708030552.PAA05934@bear.apana.org.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

   ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} said:

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

Thus giving gubmints the toe in the door they are so desperately looking 
for to regulate/license/control the online world.

The first thing you would see after passing such a law (if indeed the 
original legislation itself didn't contain the provision) would be a 
requirement for identification of all accounts and account holders. 
Anonymous email and anonymous remailers would be the first victims.

Then there would be a license fee introduced to cover the costs of such a 
system (internet drivers license?), followed by calls for censorship 
which would now have much greater pseudo legitimacy. This would be only 
the crest of a very big wave. 

Spam is conveniently dealt with using procmail and other filtering tools. 
Admins generally will deal swiftly with denial of service attacks.

I'm having a problem with leaves from the neighbours trees blowing onto 
my front lawn. I think the government should DO SOMETHING.