On Saturday, May 13, 2006, 7:40:25 PM, Bronto wrote: B> So a good rule of thumb is that since I'm legit, I follow CAN-SPAM. B> Real spammers have to contend with state laws too.
I don't have all the facts as to this (theoretical?) situation, so I'll answer the long way. Under CAN-SPAM, legitimate senders of commercial email (e.g. sent with the express permission of the recipient) still have to conform to certain minimum standards, such as the inclusion of a physical mailing address, notification of option to decline to receive further messages, and honoring any such "unsubscribe" requests. While CAN-SPAM doesn't prohibit unsolicited commercial email, it doesn't legalize it either. Common-law claims are still available, and UCE is already pretty much universally prohibited and blocked/filtered by ISPs. If you're sending UCE and standing still (e.g. CAN-SPAM compliant), a large number of your recipients won't get your messages. In fact, CAN-SPAM requires UCE to include a conspicuous notice that the message is a commercial advertisement, (which could be used to score on for SA). What CAN-SPAM does do is provide specific civil remedies and criminal penalties for the standard fraudulent spammer tactics that are required to get around filters and avoid having their plug pulled right away. Fraudulent tactics such as forged headers, unauthorized use of relays/proxies, etc. are still actionable under state laws, other federal laws (such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and RICO), as well as CAN-SPAM. Of course, anyone concerned about their obligations or remedies under CAN-SPAM or other relevant laws should consult a licensed attorney in their state. I'm not attempting to give legal advice to anyone - just perhaps a starting point for some questions for their attorney. -- Best regards, Robert Braver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
