[13296] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Payments as an answer to spam
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John R. Levine)
Fri May 16 12:06:19 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: 15 May 2003 15:03:44 -0000
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <3EC20C72.9020602@skygate.co.uk>
Cc:
>On a similar note, I've been wondering whether there could be a protocol
>which allows an MTA to indicate whether or not it is permissible to send
>it spam. If the MTA indicates that it is not permissible, and spam is
>sent anyway, the sender could commit the unauthorised access offence.
Of course. See http://www.cauce.org/proposal
(Note that we wrote it in 1998.) The "no spam" notice is technically
trivial, but is only useful if there are laws that make the notice
legally binding on senders.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
