[LINK] Re: The Spam Act
jwhit at melbpc.org.au
Mon Apr 12 08:49:11 EST 2004
At 01:19 PM 11/04/04 +1000, Dr. Bob Jansen wrote:
>Am I spamming them by continuing to send to Link? Is this opening up
>liability on list moderators/owners and that they can now be liable for
This was raised at the briefing in Melbourne a couple weeks ago.
Essentially the answer was that the ACA isn't going after things like
that. There is a common sense approach to what they will pursue. If they
were going to go to the letter of the law, I guess signatures [like mine]
that identify a business aspect could be taken to be commercial by the
defintion of the Act. However there are many things like implied consent
from subscribing that would counter the problem.
Someone [Tony?] said that smart list owners will set their lists to accept
direct posts only from subscribers. I guess spammers could 'dip in', send,
then unsubscribe, but that takes some effort at least, and wouldn't be
likely to result from the direct spam lists that Ash mentions.
I think the thing that I wonder about is how this is going to be
implemented. I asked if it would be complaints based or audit or
pursuit. I didn't get a clear answer to that question. As someone pointed
out recently, the common behaviour now is to delete the messages rather
than take the time to see if they are commercial, compliant, consented to,
etc. because so many of them are virus/trojan. I don't take the chance of
downloading them. It's quicker to zap them from the list on the webmail
server. So, who is going to spend time complaining?
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at melbpc.org.au -- http://member.melbpc.org.au/~jwhit/whitentr.htm
_ __________________ _
More information about the Link