Re: Proposed EU Directive on Electronic Commerce
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:31:22 +0000
Piet Beertema said:
> First of all there's a wild variety of user mailers,
> lots of which don't allow users to add X- header lines.
> Go tell it the developers of those mailers.
> Irrelevant if a law requires X-UCE headers.
> Then it has to be law that applies *worldwide*.
Wrong. See other messages in this thread.
> Third, spammers hide themselves and cover their tracks.
> No EC Directive is going to change that.
> Some will be deterred by the fact that they will be
> committing an offence. Some will not.
> How many spammers are deterred by those US laws
> that forbid spam?
Hard to tell. But at least some. Does failure to reach 100% mean that
nothing should be done ?
> Which means that the filtering would have to be done by
> the user, *not* by his/her ISP: it might well even become
> illegal for the ISP to do such filtering!
> False. The user can authorise the ISP to filter on
> her behalf. And I see nothing requiring the ISP to
> offer an unfiltered feed either.
> Agreed. But authorisation by definition makes
> filtering a legal act.
In other words, exactly the opposite of what you just said.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Email: clive@localhost | Tel: +44 1733 705000
Regulation Officer | Home: clive@localhost | or: +44 973 377646
London Internet Exchange | | Fax: +44 1733 353929
