[arin-discuss] ARIN billing practice
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
jer at mia.net
Mon Sep 21 17:46:58 EDT 2009
Almost every spam I get contains something that "complies" with that
"regulation". I really do not want to argue the semantics of a law
that remains relatively ineffective and unenforceable as it is
written. It does not outlaw or make illegal the act of sending UCE.
What it does is says if you are going to do it, you need to
accommodate those that do not want to receive such UCE by way of
providing a removal system or valid contact address. As such, most of
these places do.
Again, annoying, yes. Illegal no.
Anyway Sean, my original point was that asking ARIN to act as an
enforcement or entrapment agent is likely not the solution here and
would probably do more harm than good.
On Sep 21, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Sean Cheesman wrote:
> My bad. I thought the CAN-SPAM act allowed for criminal charges
> against companies that don't comply with regulation. Guess I'm
> living in an alternate universe...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Anthony Kinsey [mailto:jer at mia.net]
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 5:29 PM
> To: Sean Cheesman
> Cc: David Farmer; Owen DeLong; arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] ARIN billing practice
> On Sep 21, 2009, at 3:50 PM, Sean Cheesman wrote:
>> Maybe I'm just simplifying this too much, but why doesn't ARIN just
>> do everything possible (Articles of Incorporation, verification of
>> identity, etc) so that when spammers do misuse these blocks the
>> authorities actually have good contact information for those
>> responsible? As it was said, ARIN is not a policing body, but that
>> doesn't mean that they can't enact policies that will help those
>> that can police.
> While I can appreciate your intentions and frustration, last I checked
> spam was not a crime. Annoying, yes, illegal? No.
> Besides all this is going to do is entice people to submit more bogus
More information about the ARIN-discuss