Re: Proposed EU Directive on Electronic Commerce

["Clive D.W. Feather" <]

Piet Beertema said:
>     	How many spammers are deterred by those US laws that forbid spam?
>     Hard to tell. But at least some. Does failure to
>     reach 100% mean that nothing should be done ?
> Does expected failure to reach 0.000001%
> justify the efforts?

But that is not my expectation; thus the question is nugatory.

>          	Which means that the filtering would have to be done by
>      		the user, *not* by his/her ISP: it might well even become
>     		illegal for the ISP to do such filtering!
>             False. The user can authorise the ISP to filter on
>             her behalf. And I see nothing requiring the ISP to
>             offer an unfiltered feed either.
>     	Agreed. But authorisation by definition makes
>     	filtering a legal act.
>     In other words, exactly the opposite of what you just said.
> Nope: there's a world of difference between the
> *global* sort of filtering (i.e. applying for
> all uses) that I was referring to, and the
> *authorised per-user* sort of filtering.

I see nothing that prevents the ISP from saying, up front, "*all* received
mail with "X-UCE: yes" will be deleted undelivered". If you see otherwise,
please cite specific wording.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather       | Email: clive@localhost   | Tel: +44 1733 705000
Regulation Officer       | Home:  clive@localhost |  or: +44 973 377646
London Internet Exchange |                           | Fax: +44 1733 353929