![]() |
![]() |
|
Click the comments link on any story to see comments or add your own. |
04 Jun 2009
posted at: 20:07 :: permanent link to this entry :: 3 comments Trackback link is http://weblog.johnlevine.com/Email/phight.trackback 24 Apr 2009
Press reports say that the Canadian government introduced an anti-spam bill in the House of Commons today. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but since it's reportedly based on the recommendations in the report from 2005 task force, of which I was a member, signs are encouraging. I'll write more once I've had a change to digest it. posted at: 17:27 :: permanent link to this entry :: 1 comments Trackback link is http://weblog.johnlevine.com/Email/c27a.trackback 31 Mar 2009
Last September the Virginia Supreme Court issued a surprise ruling that reversed its previous decision and threw out the state's anti-spam law on First Amendment grounds. The Commonwealth made a last ditch appeal to the US Supreme Court, which I predicted they'd be unlikely to accept. I guessed right, they turned it down yesterday, meaning the case is finally over. Due to the peculiar facts and history of this case, the decision would be unlikely ever to affect anyone other than Jaynes, and he's still in jail on other charges, so in the big picture it's just a blip. I thought the VA legislature had already passed a revised law that fixed the first amendment problem, but apparently not, since the state Attorney General says he's drafting a new law for next year's session. Even that's not all that important, since state laws are tightly constrained by CAN SPAM, and can only make things that are already illegal under CAN SPAM more illegal. The most useful difference a state law can make is to leave out the CAN SPAM language about awarding costs which makes a losing CAN SPAM suit potentially very expensive to the plaintiff. posted at: 11:09 :: permanent link to this entry :: 0 comments Trackback link is http://weblog.johnlevine.com/Email/jayneslast.trackback 17 Mar 2009
posted at: 08:32 :: permanent link to this entry :: 2 comments Trackback link is http://weblog.johnlevine.com/Email/dkimdepl.trackback 02 Jan 2009
An acquaintance wondered why the people who run the systems that receive mail get to make all the rules about what gets delivered. After all, he noted: The sender pays for bandwidth and agrees to abide by the bandwidth provider's rules.posted at: 22:21 :: permanent link to this entry :: 3 comments Trackback link is http://weblog.johnlevine.com/Email/whopays.trackback |
Topics
My other sitesOther blogsWord
to the Wise
Related sitesCoalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2005-2008 John R. Levine.
CAN SPAM address harvesting notice: the operator of this website will
not give, sell, or otherwise transfer addresses maintained by this
website to any other party for the purposes of initiating, or enabling
others to initiate, electronic mail messages.