I just don't think that a ban on spam is likely to be the most efficient means of dealing with the problem, mainly because it's almost totally unenforceable. A ban could only be enforced on reputable companies with real fixed addresses, and they tend not to be the problem spammers. I've never gotten spam from Wal-Mart, but I get piles from web-companies advertising credit reports and such. Legal measures won't do much to solve the problem -- the only semi-effective ways of doing it would cripple the rest of the internet (a per-email charge, for example). Technology is advancing to deal with the problem, but spamming technology will likely develop in lock-step. I tend to think that the solution will arrive when people are willing to pay a premium for an ISP that blocks out problem domains, using lists like SpamHaus or MAPS (as Joel Grus pointed out). Then the system becomes mostly self-enforcing.
I don't think we should be too eager to look to the judicial system for solutions to problems that seem likely to sort themselves out. Eric Crampton -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Fred Foldvary Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 4:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Spam: Legal, economic or technical problem? --- Eric Crampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While we're at it, why don't we make it illegal for people to kill each > other. If it were illegal, with stiff fines, we'd surely get rid of > murder. Do you deny that we have less murder with laws penalizing it than if we had no such laws? If so, do you wish to eliminate all criminal codes? Fred Foldvary ===== [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
