On last.fm: Radiohead - Listen free and discover!
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 10 of 32:
Next »
« Previous
That's Quite A Plan
Well now, George, let's see what we have here in your analysis and plan.
Step 1: Hold ISPs responsible for any spam sent from their systems.
Step 2: Send ISPs to jail or make it easy to file lawsuits (presumably class action) against them if you receive any spam sent from their systems.

Good plan, except it needs more explanation. Let's see. ISPs now liable for spam, so they:
a. Spend beaucoup bucks insuring their systems don't send any spam. Wait a minute, what is spam? Does that mean they eliminate all commercial messages? How do they figure out what can go from their servers and what can't? Mass mailings, right? What size is that? Fifty, hundred, thousand?
b. Just decide that e-mail is no longer worth it and drop it as an internet service. Competition you say will keep them in, since competitors will all offer it. Maybe, but also maybe competitors will face the same problems they do.
c. Take the risk, but insure that they have the money to cover the risk. Guess where that money will come from? Their profits? Don't think so. The spammers? Right. The customer? You got it. Same issue as malpractice. Somebody cashes in, but you and I don't, but we pay the freight.
So, if you want to make the ISP liable for spam, be my guest, but be prepared to fund your plan with big bucks from our pockets.

By the way, Can-Spam did not make spam illegal, it just set rules the spammers are (supposed) to abide by.

Also, by the way, all spam is not an illegal commercial enterprise any more than junk mail through USPS is illegal.
Posted by: Don Bradley   Posted on: 12/23/03 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Nice ...  worknman | 12/23/03
So what  master of illusion | 12/24/03
exactly  JWatson77 | 12/29/03
Whoopee  GRindinAxTaRupy | 12/23/03
Agreed...  BitTwiddler | 12/24/03
Whatever  FilledOut | 12/23/03
IMO=  afterbrnr | 12/23/03
IMO=  FilledOut | 12/23/03
Yes! Good for Symantec!  George Mitchell | 12/23/03
That's Quite A Plan  Don Bradley | 12/23/03
Horsepuckies...  BitTwiddler | 12/24/03
Cite Please  Don Bradley | 12/24/03
Are you for real?  George Mitchell | 12/24/03
Yeah I'm for Real  Don Bradley | 12/24/03
what do you mean  JWatson77 | 12/29/03
Good For Symantec  wadeprater | 12/23/03
Why not Product Activation?  Riff Fox | 12/24/03
Ok, be enlightened...  BitTwiddler | 12/24/03
Not only that ....  worknman | 12/24/03
Re: Ok, be enlightened...  Riff Fox | 12/25/03
What you need to know.  ShadeTree | 12/30/03
NIC drivers do not break Activation.  ShadeTree | 12/30/03
Product Activation is unnecessary  George Mitchell | 12/24/03
There are TWO tyupes of product activation.  Update victim | 12/24/03
Re: There are TWO tyupes of product activation.  Riff Fox | 12/25/03
Not Spyware  ShadeTree | 12/30/03
So that's where...  BitTwiddler | 12/24/03
Clearly Not Symantec  jnonneman | 12/24/03
And I bet ....  ohshutup | 12/27/03
A Fine Verdict, But...  jnonneman | 12/24/03
THE SPAMMERS GET IT FINALLY  srjarmz | 12/29/03
symantec wins . . .  mark_wurster | 12/29/03

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

Meet Doc

  • Here to help you with your Document Management Needs
  • Doc is an enigma. Born to a Russian ballerina and a German electrical engineer, he grew up in various locations in the United States. He’s seen the insides of more brands, versions, and generations of printer and printer-related hardware than almost anyone.
  • To learn more about this mysterious figure check out his blog on ZDNet and his Workspace on TechRepublic. You’ll be glad you did.
  • Produced by
    ZDNet and