At Fri Dec 13 17:04:17 2002, Harold Hallikainen wrote: > > Last week I posted a section of California law that permits ISPs > to sue spammers if the spammer has been notified that the ISP does not > accept spam. The law makes mention of automatic notification by the > receivning email server, indiciating that notification would be > sufficient. However, the law implies this is a "future capability" of > email systems. One responder on this list said he/she included something > in the HELO response on the SMTP server. Does anyone know of any standards > in this area as to what a legally enforcible "no spam" SMTP response would > be? I'll look forward to responses and also check with the CA Attorney > General.
The only thing I've seen is http://www.cauce.org/proposal/ I can't see it being legally enforcable in its current form; I think you'd need a standards-track RFC, preferably at "Internet Standard" level before you'd get something that would be legally recognised in multiple jurisdictions (and it would be a nightmare if jurisdictions didn't all standardise on the same approach). Martin -- Martin Radford | "Only wimps use tape backup: _real_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | men just upload their important stuff -o) Registered Linux user #9257 | on ftp and let the rest of the world /\\ - see http://counter.li.org | mirror it ;)" - Linus Torvalds _\_V ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility Learn to use your power at OSDN's High Performance Computing Channel http://hpc.devchannel.org/ _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
