[ppml] Abstract of proposed Internet Draft for Best Current Practice

[Dr. Jeffrey Race]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:34:58 -0600, J Bacher wrote:

>The recommendation was that ISPs prevent spam.  I'd like to know a 
solution 
>that scales.

Many thanks for your valuable prodding.  I will clarify this and
would welcome suggested wording to make my intention clear: ISPs
are clarified (in my proposal) to have an affirmative duty to 
prevent abuse as defined and are liable for damages to victims 
if they don't.   In fact this simply recapitulates the import of
th law now, except that it has (to my knowledge) rarely yet been
litigated.    My point is that the ISPs AT LEAST must establish
the enforcement mechanism specified so as to respond to complaints
of AUP violation.   They should establish a preventive system as
well by technical means.  This point needs elaboration.  Wording
welcome.

I hasten to add that well-managed service providers do this 
already; I aim simply to elevate industry standards to the level
of the best current operators.  For example, my provider here in
Bangkok blocks transmission of many types of headers, as a spam
deterrent.  I must manually modify the headers in many of my
spam complaints or I cannot even transmit the message.   

Jeffrey Race