Re: Interesting CAM SPAM court case as it relates to 2821 vs 2822

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Glube" <[email protected]>
To: "'IETF-MXCOMP'" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 4:27 PM
Subject: RE: Interesting CAM SPAM court case as it relates to 2821 vs 2822


> However, it is not correct to make the bald statement:
>
> |"The court concluded that the anti-spam law only covers false
> |information in email headers, not the text of the email."

> The Act not only regulates the subject heading, but also mandates
> certain inclusions in the text and regulates the text content
> when determining the message primary purpose in accordance with
> the rules published by the FTC.

My fundamental intepretation of the CAN-SPAM that it was a compromise to
allow SPAM as long as the SPAMMER did not lie about:

    - Who Sent it  (Sender)
    - Topic Identification (Subject)

and it gave the IETF 18 months to define how SPAMMERS will do it.

What I found interesting is that it held with my belief that we do have the
law (atleast in the US) behind us when it comes to making sure the 2821 and
2822 entities are valid.   We always did, but much less with 2822 because it
has been relaxed over the years.

    Original 822 required: Date: From, To
    2822 relaxed this to:  Date: From:

and now we have a draft from Bruce Lilly that wants to relax it move by
removing From requirement.

> As an aside, in my view, the Act is fundamentally flawed as it
> imposes no obligations on volume control of UBCE.

This is already covered by other provisions of US federal laws -  property
harm basically.  AOL used this against many.

> John Glube
> Toronto, Canada

You know Canada has some agressive and interesting email related bills.  I
recall one article from the BNA newsletters I received (a great collection
of IP/High Tech and the law related news events), about a bill in Canada
that will make it manatory for all ISPs to have AVS Software installed.  Not
having it could result in a mal-practice claim.  I don't know it that ever
passed or not.

--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com