Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs

Sat May 24 18:32:50 UTC 1997

> > * The FTC can discipline misbehaving ISPs.
> > * Various penalties for unsigned ads, for ISPs that don't provide 
> >   filtering, for spammers who continue to send ads after receiving a remove.
> 

Don't these two lines cause everyone a little bit of grief?

1) What can the FTC do to discipline an ISP?
2) Why should ISPs be required to filter? Wouldn't it make sense that 
customers would decide if they want to make a purchase based on *if* 
filtering were available?

The other two [unsigned ads] and [spamming after a remove] are good. It 
doesn't address the most serious problem.

By a real email address, what do we mean? One that doesn't bounce? One 
that actually goes back to the spammer? What if every 48hrs he/she 
rotates email addresses so the spammer can ignore the remove requests 
because (simply put) it is coming from a different spammer (and *still* 
send untagged email)?

-Deepak.