[IP] : Why Technologists Should Stay Involved with SPAM Legislation

[Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Roland Cole <cole@spi.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 08:30:31 
To:"Dave Farber (by way of Bernard A. Galler)" <dave@farber.net>
Subject: Why Technologists Should Stay Involved with SPAM Legislation

Dave et al.

I have performed my own analysis of the CAN-SPAM Act and agree with Larry
Tesler. I would stress two of his points.

1. It is really early to tell what the effect (good or bad) will be,
especially with staggered implementation. Few laws show results
immediately - it takes time for the word to get out, the cases to be filed,
the judges to show how they will interpret it, etc.

2. I think even Congress recognized that this act was a piece in the
puzzle - the Act contains explicit language about what it overrules, but
also about what it does not, leaving those laws in place. It also mandates
further rule-making and calls for a review in 2 years, as Larry mentioned.

Indeed, the law allows for, if not encourages, some real technical input
concerning techniques to (a) identify commercial email; (b) determine the
primary purpose of an email; (c) prevent or minimize false header
information; (d) smooth opt-out mechanisms, (e) structure reward systems,
(f) measure quantity of mail sent, and others.

I urge us to stay involved and pushing for what would be effective
mechanisms, both at the broad conceptual level (e.g. opt-out versus opt-in)
and also at the "devil is in the details" level ( e.g. mechanisms to
validate header information).

Rollie

Roland J. Cole, Executive Director
Software Patent Institute
11 South Meridian, #1313
INDIANAPOLIS IN 46204-3535
cole@spi.org; www.spi.org
317-231-7799; fax 317-231-7433

-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/