, The Register 2004-07-07
Delegates at an International Telecommunication Union (ITU) spam conference this week have called for standardised, stronger worldwide anti-spam legislation. They aim control the 'modern day epidemic' of spam within two years.
Expand all |
Post comment
2) The US Constitution guarantees the right to free speech and the freedom of press. Email must in theory be very similar to either one or the other. While I do not like spam, what's to say that someone will eventually get sued for emailing someone else, when it was not spam? It's just as much their right to spam as it is my right to filter it out.
3) There have already been several wonderful solutions to spam. Are our lawmakers this ignorant? All the major three (Hotmail, Yahoo, AOL) email providers have had antispam built into them for as long as I can remember. There are several very good anti-spam software packages out there, SpamAssassin being my favorite. I've had a military email account for four years and never gotten spam. Even a generic Outlook Express can be configured to filter out email based on criteria. John Q. Dvorak suggested that a better idea would be for ISP's to charge based on total number of email sent, and/or based on total bandwidth, which would in theory drive spammers out of business due to the costs associated. Are our lawmakers ignorant, or are they being pressured or bribed into signing off on anti-spam legislature?
Food for thought.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/9069/27399#27399