Re: Proposed EU Directive on Electronic Commerce
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:50:18 +0000
Piet Beertema said:
> 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 ?
> Does expected failure to reach 0.000001%
> justify the efforts?
But that is not my expectation; thus the question is nugatory.
> 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.
> Nope: there's a world of difference between the
> *global* sort of filtering (i.e. applying for
> all uses) that I was referring to, and the
> *authorised per-user* sort of filtering.
I see nothing that prevents the ISP from saying, up front, "*all* received
mail with "X-UCE: yes" will be deleted undelivered". If you see otherwise,
please cite specific wording.
--
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
