From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Fri Jun 9 14:37:56 2000 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16984 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:37:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id LAA17065; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 231707 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:14:30 -0700 Received: from clio.sc.intel.com (clio.sc.intel.com [143.183.152.25]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id LAA17059 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:14:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Ludwig.sc.intel.com (ludwig.sc.intel.com [143.183.53.32]) by clio.sc.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.30 2000/06/08 18:25:35 dmccart Exp $) with SMTP id LAA02364 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:12:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by Ludwig.sc.intel.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA13589; Fri, 9 Jun 00 11:13:47 PDT Message-ID: <10006091813.AA13589@Ludwig.sc.intel.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:13:47 PDT Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: Sally Hambridge Subject: New draft to read Comments: To: ietf-run@mailbag.cps.intel.com To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com IETF-Runners - Ted send out a new version of the Adverts draft, an announcement of which I have yet to see on this list. (Meaning probably that it bounced since the sender is probably not subscribed. Ted's address also seems to not be correct, so his announcement also bounced, sigh..) So please go to your local drafts archives and pick up version 2 of the adverts draft (draft-ieft-run-adverts-02.txt) and read it and let's get a discussion going and decide if we need a meeting in Pittsburgh or whether we're all satisfied enough with the draft to move it to RFC. Thanks! Sally From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Fri Jun 9 17:14:09 2000 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA18911 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:14:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id NAA19249; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:55:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 232040 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:55:08 -0700 Received: from torque.pothole.com ([38.138.52.132]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id NAA19242 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:55:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by torque.pothole.com (8.8.2/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA27715 for IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:54:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: torque.pothole.com: localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol X-Mts: smtp Message-ID: <200006092054.QAA27715@torque.pothole.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:54:45 -0400 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" Subject: Re: New draft to read Comments: To: IETF-RUN To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Jun 2000 11:13:47 PDT." <10006091813.AA13589@Ludwig.sc.intel.com> I think this document is in good shape. I have some minor points which are all appended at the end of this message. I don't think we need to meet in Pittsburgh unless there is substantial new work being proposed. Thanks, Donald From: Sally Hambridge Message-ID: <10006091813.AA13589@Ludwig.sc.intel.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:13:47 PDT Reply-To: IETF-RUN To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com >IETF-Runners - Ted send out a new version of the Adverts draft, >an announcement of which I have yet to see on this list. >(Meaning probably that it bounced since the sender is >probably not subscribed. Ted's address also seems to >not be correct, so his announcement also bounced, sigh..) > >So please go to your local drafts archives and pick up >version 2 of the adverts draft > >(draft-ieft-run-adverts-02.txt) and read it and let's get a discussion >going and decide if we need a meeting in Pittsburgh or whether >we're all satisfied enough with the draft to move it to RFC. > >Thanks! >Sally There seem to be occasional blank lines...if these can't be easily fixed I suppose the RFC editor can get them... Section 1 Because the recipients have no control over whether or not they > ^^ > little will receive such messages, the aforementioned costs are realized involuntarily, and without consent. It is this condition (the Section 7 Opt-In mailing lists are consistently shown to be more effective in starting and maintaining customer relationships than any other type of Internet advertising; studies have shown Opt-In mailing to be > ^^ > have a response rate of Eighteen (18%) Percent more effective than Banner advertising [5]. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ > while ^ > ^ > only has a response rate of 0.65%. Section 7.A refer to Appendix C of this document. > ^ > B Section 7.B: Although your-site.example is used in some places, most use foo.bar as an example domain name. Some day, "bar" may be a valid top level domain name so I sould suggst replacing with foo.example or example.com or other forms approved in RFC 2606. Section 8 regarding those types of "investments", refer to Appendix 1 of > ^ > A Appendix A Section A.1 In the classic Pyramid scheme, there is a list of a few people. A participant sends money to one or all of them, and then shifts that > ^^^^ > one person off the list and adds their own name. The participant then sends the same message to N people.... Replacement Author Info for myself: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd > Motorola > 140 Forest Avenue > Hudson, MA 01749 USA > Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Sun Jun 11 22:00:26 2000 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11750 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 22:00:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id SAA08704; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:37:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 231267 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:37:31 -0700 Received: from gtei2.bellatlantic.net (gtei2.bellatlantic.net [199.45.39.161]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id SAA08654 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:27:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from adsl-141-151-17-7.bellatlantic.net (adsl-141-151-17-7.bellatlantic.net [141.151.17.7]) by gtei2.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id VAA03247 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 21:25:04 -0400 (EDT) References: <10006091813.AA13589@Ludwig.sc.intel.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mailbag.cps.intel.com id SAA08655 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 21:09:47 -0400 Reply-To: tedgavin@bellatlantic.net Sender: IETF-RUN From: Travel Curse Organization: PATCO Flight Routing Specialists, LLC Subject: Re: New draft to read Comments: To: IETF-RUN To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com In-Reply-To: <10006091813.AA13589@Ludwig.sc.intel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:13:47 PDT, you wrote: >IETF-Runners - Ted send out a new version of the Adverts draft, >an announcement of which I have yet to see on this list. >(Meaning probably that it bounced since the sender is >probably not subscribed. Ted's address also seems to >not be correct, so his announcement also bounced, sigh..) Hummm...maybve this one will work? As I mentioned in the last announcement, all of the changes reccommended at Washington, DC are incorporated, as far as I can tell. If I've missed anything, please let me know. The only thing we are missing is the inclusion of legal cites. I'm working on that, and I'd like to get the General Counsel of AOL involved, since they pioneered the successful lawsuit for domain-name forgery. If anyone else has a legal resource available to them, and can get cites of this nature, now would be the perfect time to raise your ascii hand. >So please go to your local drafts archives and pick up >version 2 of the adverts draft It's also at http://members.bellatlantic.net/~tedgavin/draft-ietf-run-adverts-02.txt >(draft-ieft-run-adverts-02.txt) and read it and let's get a discussion >going and decide if we need a meeting in Pittsburgh or whether >we're all satisfied enough with the draft to move it to RFC. What Sally said :-) Ted (*really* hoping I can post again) ------------------------------------------------------------ From Judith Stone's "Ten Potentially Top-Grossing Films for the Video-Incompatible Couple": Number 6 - "Scenes From a Mall and the Night Visitors" From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Tue Jun 13 15:34:27 2000 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20050 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:34:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id MAA05355; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:17:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 232022 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:17:41 -0700 Received: from rmx452-mta.mail.com (rmx452-mta.mail.com [165.251.48.46]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id MAA05351 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:17:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web621-wrb.mail.com (web621-wrb.mail.com [165.251.33.61]) by rmx452-mta.mail.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA15787 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:15:18 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: mail.com X-Originating-IP: 63.72.77.7 Message-ID: <382222367.960923716470.JavaMail.root@web621-wrb.mail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:15:15 -0400 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: Ted Gavin Subject: Changes to New Draft Comments: To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To all; I made Donald's reccommended changes to the draft, and eliminated some of the excessive blank lines (don't know how they got there ). The most recent working version will always be available at http://members.bellatlantic.net/~tedgavin/draft-ietf-run-adverts-02.txt JC Dill has volunteered to gather some relevant cites that show domain owners successfully suing for damages after smappers have used their domain name fraudulently (such as AOL.COM), as well as cites that will show awards of damages for spamming-as-theft-of-service. JC, if you need any help, don't be shy about asking the list! Thanks, everyone! Ted From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Fri Jun 16 04:52:09 2000 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA07715 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:52:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id BAA10567; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 01:35:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 232310 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 01:35:18 -0700 Received: from beatles.cselt.it (beatles.cselt.it [163.162.29.125]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id BAA10563 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 01:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from beatles.cselt.it (beatles.cselt.it [163.162.29.125]) by beatles.cselt.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA29220 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:32:47 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-MD5: f49HduMPhgjOBNNsAUQhJg== X-Mailer: dtmail 1.2.0 CDE Version 1.2 SunOS 5.6 sun4u sparc Message-ID: <200006160832.KAA29220@beatles.cselt.it> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:32:47 +0200 Reply-To: Maurizio Codogno Sender: IETF-RUN From: Maurizio Codogno Subject: American Billl To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com On the ietf@ietf mailing list there is talk about a (U.S.) bill regarding unsolicited email: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.3113: Did you check it? judgement on that list are mixed. ciao ,.mau. From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Fri Jun 16 09:14:53 2000 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11154 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:14:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id FAA14210; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 05:59:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 231301 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 05:59:14 -0700 Received: from rmx195-mta.mail.com (rmx195-mta.mail.com [165.251.48.42]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id FAA14205 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 05:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web623-wrb.mail.com (web623-wrb.mail.com [165.251.33.63]) by rmx195-mta.mail.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA02412 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:56:47 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: mail.com X-Originating-IP: 63.72.77.7 Message-ID: <387223454.961160206302.JavaMail.root@web623-wrb.mail.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:56:46 -0400 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: Ted Gavin Subject: Re: American Billl Comments: To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------Original Message------ From: Maurizio Codogno To: IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Sent: June 16, 2000 8:32:47 AM GMT Subject: American Bill > On the ietf@ietf mailing list there is talk about a (U.S.) > bill regarding unsolicited email: > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.3113: > Did you check it? judgement on that list are mixed. I read the bill and have been watching the conversation. I've decided that I'm not going to say anything in the IETF list conversation just yet, mostly because Keith Moore is pretty much echoing a lot of the pessimism I have about a bill like this ever working in Real Life[tm]. On the other hand, any legislation that at least sets up a framework which can be ammended after its shown that it doesn't go far enough, could be a Good Thing. It is important to remember that, in a global perspective, the bills drafted by the US House of Representatives carry the legitimacy of the scrawlings of a group of young children in a sandbox (that must be the ISTF'er in me speaking :). As Jonathan pointed out several months ago, when a Frenchman receives spam, if it states that it complies with a "Bill in the US Senate", the potential effectiveness of that legislation loses is eliminated by the context. On a positive note, what we do here can be adopted by ISPs, which will enforce a "higher standard" than the aforementioned legislation. Especially with all of the concern about privacy that the press has discovered is popular for scaring their readership into consuming of late. Regards; Ted From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Fri Jun 16 09:41:37 2000 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11555 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:41:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id GAA14570; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 231360 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 06:29:11 -0700 Received: from mailhost.atelier.fr (bbs.atelier.fr [212.73.218.8]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id GAA14566 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 06:29:09 -0700 (PDT) References: <387223454.961160206302.JavaMail.root@web623-wrb.mail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:29:29 +0200 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: ColorNet Robin Subject: Re: American Billl Comments: To: tedgavin@BELLATLANTIC.NET Comments: cc: maxwell@chiliad.co.uk To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com In-Reply-To: <387223454.961160206302.JavaMail.root@web623-wrb.mail.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit tedgavin@BELLATLANTIC.NET a écrit: >As Jonathan pointed out several months ago, when a Frenchman receives >spam, if it states that it complies with a "Bill in the US Senate", >the potential effectiveness of that legislation loses is eliminated by >the context. On a positive note, what we do here can be adopted by >ISPs, which will enforce a "higher standard" than the aforementioned >legislation. Especially with all of the concern about privacy that the >press has discovered is popular for scaring their readership into >consuming of late. Good Afternoon, I am speaking in the French Parliamentary meeting on Internet and Public Liberties on Monday, and at the Brussels Parliamentary meeting on Internet and Education on Wednesday. A number of key issues will be broached http://www.crc-evenements.com The European Community official definition of CO REGULATION is now private sector "SELF REGULATION" with governmental benediction. The private sector is cybersquatting in the absence of coherent Governance legislation and of almost total absence of understanding of the basic issues linking on and off line legislative harmonisation and coherency. At a meeting with the UK Foreign Office last week (apart from the fact that the main officials are not on the internet even if they are beginning to communicate through email (email adresses not available on business cards) is the total absence of any real understanding of context let alone of the issues involved. We are also expanding ISOC's visibility with a key role in the ISOC INFOethics conference in Paris in November. Please liaise with Christine Maxwell if any interesting thought on these matters for those who do not follow the ISTF lists. IPv6 will catalyse change in a number of areas and the implications for the protection of privacy are unclear .... but some of us are hoping to effect a role reversal enabling individual freedoms to be both preserved and expanded. The battle is not won yet and may not be decided until the European Parliamentary elections of 2004 - yet there is hope that we can reverse certain roles. One event which may interest people is http://www.newropeans.org where ISOC has signed a MOU for around 15 speakers. If anyone is especially interested in speaking I may be able to open up 1 or 2 additionnal slots (food and hotel paid but not transport) Paris October 5 - 7th with Prodi Delors Chirac Jospin and several European heads of State or top ministers. Best regards Jonathan From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Fri Jun 16 12:27:03 2000 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16058 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:27:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id JAA16419; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 231546 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:11:19 -0700 Received: from tonnant.cnchost.com (tonnant.concentric.net [207.155.248.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id JAA16415 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:11:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Tango.vo.cnchost.com ([208.37.12.180]) by tonnant.cnchost.com id MAA20306; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:08:56 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.8] Errors-To: X-Sender: jcdill%vo.cnchost.com@pop3.vo.cnchost.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-ID: <4.3.2.20000616081608.01b41c50@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:07:23 -0700 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: JC Dill Subject: Legal citations in the New Draft To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com In-Reply-To: <382222367.960923716470.JavaMail.root@web621-wrb.mail.com> On 12:15 PM 6/13/00, Ted Gavin wrote: >To all; > >I made Donald's reccommended changes to the draft, and eliminated some >of the excessive blank lines (don't know how they got there ). > >The most recent working version will always be available at >http://members.bellatlantic.net/~tedgavin/draft-ietf-run-adverts-02.txt > >JC Dill has volunteered to gather some relevant cites that show domain >owners successfully suing for damages after smappers have used their >domain name fraudulently (such as AOL.COM), as well as cites that will >show awards of damages for spamming-as-theft-of-service. JC, if you >need any help, don't be shy about asking the list! *************************************** This reply has 3 sections: Citations for section 2 Rewording issue for section 2 Citations for section 8 *************************************** Citations for section 2: I've gotten feedback from 2 excellent industry lawyers. I need to track down the best freely accessible online web pages to use for online citations to the cases they recommend as precedent setting - I should have that early next week. The most often mentioned seminal case is: (quoted and linked from ) CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., No. C2-96-1070 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 24, 1996) (temporary restraining order) [WWW], preliminary injunction entered, 962 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 3, 1997) [WWW | Lexis | Westlaw], final consent order filed (E.D. Pa. May 9, 1997) [WWW]. http://www.leepfrog.com/E-Law/Cases/CompuServe_v_Cyber_Promo.html http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/cs-cp2.html http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/cs-cp3.html I was also told to "pay special attention to the AOL cases": America Online, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. America Online, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., No. 96-462 (E.D. Va. complaint filed Apr. 8, 1996) [WWW] (subsequently consolidated with Cyber Promotions' action filed in E.D. Pa.). Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. America Online, Inc., C.A. No. 96-2486, 1996 WL 565818 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 5, 1996) (temporary restraining order) [WWW | Westlaw], rev'd (3d Cir. Sept. 20, 1996), partial summary judgment granted, 948 F. Supp. 436 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 1996) (on First Amendment issues) [WWW | Lexis | Westlaw], reconsideration denied, 948 F. Supp. 436, 447 (Dec. 20, 1996) [WWW | Lexis | Westlaw], temporary restraining order denied, 948 F. Supp. 456 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 26, 1996) (on antitrust claim) [WWW | Lexis | Westlaw], settlement entered (E.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 1997) [NEWS.COM report]. America Online, Inc. v. Over the Air Equipment, Inc. America Online, Inc. v. Over the Air Equipment, Inc. (E.D. Va. complaint filed Oct. 2, 1997) [WWW] [NEWS.COM report], preliminary injunction entered (Oct. 31, 1997) [NEWS.COM report], settlement order entered (Dec. 18, 1997) [Wired News report]. America Online, Inc. v. Prime Data Worldnet Systems America Online, Inc. v. Prime Data Worldnet Systems (E.D. Va. complaint filed Oct. 17, 1997) [WWW] [NEWS.COM report]. Other America Online lawsuits America Online has filed several other suits related to unsolicited bulk e-mail. Details are available on the AOL Legal web site. Again, I'll look into this more early next week. *************************************** Rewording issue for section 2: Both of lawyers were unhappy with the wording in section 2, namely: Civil and Criminal litigation (in the United States, and progressively in other sovereign states, it is becoming accepted as fact that the theft-of-service associated with spamming is equatable to real theft) It was recommended we change the ending: Civil and Criminal litigation (in the United States, and progressively in other sovereign states, it has become accepted as fact that the theft-of-service associated with spamming often constitutes an unlawful use of private property and is actionable as trespass to chattels). They are lawyers, it is legalese. :-( Given their feedback, I recommend the draft be changed to say: Civil and Criminal litigation. In the United States, (and progressively in other sovereign states), it has become accepted as fact that the theft-of-service associated with spamming often constitutes an unlawful use of private property and is actionable as trespass to chattels (a legal civil court term tantamount to "theft") in civil court. (Note that by making this last bullet point into a 2 sentence paragraph, to keep the bulleted list's parallel construction we would have to add punctuation to the other 3 bullet points. Simply ending them with a period would probably suffice.) *************************************** Citations for section 8: " DON'T forge E-mail headers to make it look as if the messages originate from anywhere other than where they really originate. Many domain owners have won litigation against advertisers who have used their domain name in an effort to conceal their true identity." This claim is much easier to cite. We can use the precedent setting flowers.com case: http://www.rahul.net/falk/zilkerjudge.txt followed by Zirker vs C.N. ENTERPRISES and CRAIG NOWAK: http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/flowers3.html and WebSystems vs Cyberpromotion: http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/websys1.html to firmly establish that forging headers is a big no-no. jc From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Fri Jun 16 12:40:55 2000 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16373 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:40:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id JAA17093; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:28:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 231646 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:28:41 -0700 Received: from rmx195-mta.mail.com (rmx195-mta.mail.com [165.251.48.42]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id JAA17083 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:28:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web622-wrb.mail.com (web622-wrb.mail.com [165.251.33.62]) by rmx195-mta.mail.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA28769 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:26:13 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: mail.com X-Originating-IP: 63.72.77.7 Message-ID: <383116898.961172771670.JavaMail.root@web622-wrb.mail.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:26:11 -0400 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: Ted Gavin Subject: Re: Legal citations in the New Draft Comments: To: IETF-RUN To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit JC, that is truly outstanding work! I'll incorporate ove rthe weekend, and post when the reworking is done! Ted ------Original Message------ From: JC Dill To: IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Sent: June 16, 2000 4:07:23 PM GMT Subject: Legal citations in the New Draft *************************************** This reply has 3 sections: Citations for section 2 Rewording issue for section 2 Citations for section 8 *************************************** From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Mon Jun 19 01:54:07 2000 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20474 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:54:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id WAA20653; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:23:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 233277 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:23:35 -0700 Received: from marlborough.cnchost.com (marlborough.concentric.net [207.155.248.14]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id WAA20649 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:23:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Tango.vo.cnchost.com ([208.37.12.180]) by marlborough.cnchost.com id BAA15083; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:21:12 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.8] Errors-To: X-Sender: jcdill%vo.cnchost.com@pop3.vo.cnchost.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-ID: <4.3.2.20000618221510.02e07100@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:20:16 -0700 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: JC Dill Subject: legalese versus plain english To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Sigh. How do we reconcile the legal issue of "trespass does not mean theft" with our need to strongly and clearly state that unauthorized use of an ISP's servers (or relay rape of private business servers) is in violation of many various municipality laws and can cause the spammer serious legal consequences? I just don't see how: spamming often constitutes an > unlawful use of private property and is actionable > as trespass to chattels meets our need to scare spammers away from doing this illegal act. The legalese way of saying this isn't going to get through the brain of anyone who is contemplating this illegal act. I'd appreciate some ideas, as my legal resources are pretty time constrained and can't really be utilized repeatedly until we have a better idea how we might be wording this to meet our needs, and their legal viewpoint. jc >From: David >To: "'JC Dill'" > >I still think it's overstated. Trespass does not mean theft. It means >unauthorized use causing damage. > >-----Original Message----- >From: JC Dill [mailto:jcdill@vo.cnchost.com] >Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 9:09 AM >To: David >Subject: RE: Re: New draft to read > > >On 04:55 PM 6/15/00, David wrote: > > > > > >Can you make any suggestion as to how to word it to be most > >effective in dissuading people who are considering spamming, > >while being legally accurate? Would saying "tantamount to theft > >(trespass to chattels)" or "trespass to chattels (tantamount to > >theft)" be accurate? > > > >@@I'd say "it constitutes and unlawful use of private property and is > >actionable as trespass to chattels." > >Does this work? > > Civil and Criminal litigation. In the United States, > (and progressively in other sovereign states), it has > become accepted as fact that the theft-of-service > associated with spamming often constitutes an > unlawful use of private property and is actionable > as trespass to chattels (a legal civil court term > tantamount to "theft") in civil court. > From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Mon Jun 19 01:54:18 2000 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20485 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:54:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id WAA20670; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:27:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 233280 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:27:56 -0700 Received: from bolero-x.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with SMTP id WAA20666 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:27:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bolero.rahul.net by bolero-x.rahul.net with SMTP id AA17191 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:25:35 -0700 Received: from q.bolero.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by bolero.rahul.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 87CC897011 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:14:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 15320 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2000 05:14:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (208.37.12.180) by bolero.rahul.net with SMTP; 19 Jun 2000 05:14:06 -0000 X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mailbag.cps.intel.com id WAA20667 Message-ID: <80brksgb70l7tqq127dc6ra6ricmkbd62l@4ax.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:14:43 -0700 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: JC Dill Subject: (fwd) Re: Real Espresso Coffee To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit If there was ever any doubt (as if) that our draft is sorely needed, here is a textbook case in point. jc On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:13:24 GMT, in alt.coffee Mark wrote: >On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:39:54 -0400, "Daniel G." >wrote: > >>Hi guys!! >>this is an interesting coffee related newsgroup. myself got surprise with >>the quality and rich taste I found in a espresso coffee I purchased at >>www.sambitocoffee.com It's an incredible site, and they offer a large >>variety of coffee, flavours, and gifts. I think the coffee they are selling >>is from south america, real arabica. >> >>Check them out, > >No thanks Jaime. I checked out who owns sambitocoffee.com at >register.com instead: > > Organization: > Canperco Inc > Jaime Grande > 413 Fernleigh Cr South > Richmond Hill, ON M5N2M3 > CA > Phone: 905-883-5276 > Fax..: 905-883-5276 > Email: canperco@ican.net > >So we have yet another lying retailer.... "Hey guys, look at what I >found! The coolest site on the Net!!! They are great!!! They gave me >custom massages along with my 12 ounce pound of coffee!!!! They named >their first child after me because I bought a box of filters!!!" > >Sigh. When are you folks going to learn. Lie in here and you'll never, >I mean never get any business froma anyone in alt.coffee. Would you, >Jaime, buy from a retailer that was so bold-faced lying to you? > >I swear, there must be some stupid book out there that tells these Net >Neophytes to do exactly this kind of advertising message in >newsgroups... it happens too oftent to be a coincidence. > >Mark >-- >Mark Prince - Web Developer and Coffee Kid >mark @ coffeekid dot com Work: www.webmotif.com >Home: www.spiffle.com/webthing Fun: www.coffeekid.com >Consumer Reviews for Espresso machines+: www.coffeegeek.com -- jc (posted and emailed due to flakey news server, email or cc'd email replies appreciated for the same reason) From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Mon Jun 19 07:48:31 2000 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA00230 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 07:48:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id EAA25580; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 04:26:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 233138 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 04:26:39 -0700 Received: from torque.pothole.com ([38.138.52.132]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id EAA25576 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 04:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by torque.pothole.com (8.8.2/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA19563 for IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 07:26:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: torque.pothole.com: localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol X-Mts: smtp Message-ID: <200006191126.HAA19563@torque.pothole.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 07:26:23 -0400 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" Subject: Re: legalese versus plain english Comments: To: IETF-RUN To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:20:16 PDT." <4.3.2.20000618221510.02e07100@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> From: JC Dill Message-ID: <4.3.2.20000618221510.02e07100@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:20:16 -0700 To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com >Sigh. > >How do we reconcile the legal issue of "trespass does not mean theft" with >our need to strongly and clearly state that unauthorized use of an ISP's >servers (or relay rape of private business servers) is in violation of many >various municipality laws and can cause the spammer serious legal >consequences? I just don't see how: > >spamming often constitutes an ^^ a > > unlawful use of private property and is actionable ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ criminal can rsult in > > as trespass to chattels ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ fine, imprisonment, and civil lawsuits for damanges > >meets our need to scare spammers away from doing this illegal act. The >legalese way of saying this isn't going to get through the brain of anyone >who is contemplating this illegal act. > >I'd appreciate some ideas, as my legal resources are pretty time >constrained and can't really be utilized repeatedly until we have a better >idea how we might be wording this to meet our needs, and their legal viewpoint. How about changes along the line of those above? Donald >jc > > > > >From: David > >To: "'JC Dill'" > > > >I still think it's overstated. Trespass does not mean theft. It means > >unauthorized use causing damage. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: JC Dill [mailto:jcdill@vo.cnchost.com] > >Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 9:09 AM > >To: David > >Subject: RE: Re: New draft to read > > > > > >On 04:55 PM 6/15/00, David wrote: > > > > > > > > >Can you make any suggestion as to how to word it to be most > > >effective in dissuading people who are considering spamming, > > >while being legally accurate? Would saying "tantamount to theft > > >(trespass to chattels)" or "trespass to chattels (tantamount to > > >theft)" be accurate? > > > > > >@@I'd say "it constitutes and unlawful use of private property and is > > >actionable as trespass to chattels." > > > >Does this work? > > > > Civil and Criminal litigation. In the United States, > > (and progressively in other sovereign states), it has > > become accepted as fact that the theft-of-service > > associated with spamming often constitutes an > > unlawful use of private property and is actionable > > as trespass to chattels (a legal civil court term > > tantamount to "theft") in civil court. > > From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Mon Jun 19 09:06:38 2000 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03783 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:06:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id FAA26238; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 05:49:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 233202 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 05:49:49 -0700 Received: from rmx602-mta.mail.com (rmx602-mta.mail.com [165.251.48.51]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id FAA26234 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 05:49:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web623-wrb.mail.com (web623-wrb.mail.com [165.251.33.63]) by rmx602-mta.mail.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA05981 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:47:28 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: mail.com X-Originating-IP: 63.72.77.7 Message-ID: <385185384.961418846505.JavaMail.root@web623-wrb.mail.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:47:26 -0400 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: Ted Gavin Subject: Re: legalese versus plain english Comments: To: IETF-RUN To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message------ From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" To: IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Sent: June 19, 2000 11:26:23 AM GMT Subject: Re: legalese versus plain english I think if we just state "spamming often constitutes a criminal act, and can result in fines, imprisonment and civil lawsuits for damages" as Donald has laid out, we'll be fine. If we need to cite anything in more specificity, we can do so in an Appendix, can we not? Ted From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Mon Jun 19 12:27:50 2000 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13584 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:27:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id JAA29794; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:12:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 233738 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:12:00 -0700 Received: from illustrious.cnchost.com (illustrious.concentric.net [207.155.252.7]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id JAA29790 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:11:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Tango.vo.cnchost.com ([208.37.12.180]) by illustrious.cnchost.com id MAA06470; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:09:32 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.8] Errors-To: X-Sender: jcdill%vo.cnchost.com@pop3.vo.cnchost.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-ID: <4.3.2.20000619090616.02f2dee0@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:07:16 -0700 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: JC Dill Subject: Re: legalese versus plain english To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com In-Reply-To: <385185384.961418846505.JavaMail.root@web623-wrb.mail.com> On 05:47 AM 6/19/00, Ted Gavin wrote: >-----Original Message------ >From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" >To: IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM >Sent: June 19, 2000 11:26:23 AM GMT >Subject: Re: legalese versus plain english > >I think if we just state > >"spamming often constitutes a criminal act, and can result in >fines, imprisonment and civil lawsuits for damages" > >as Donald has laid out, we'll be fine. Perfect! Thanks gang! I'll work on sussing out the AOL cites and then I think we are set. Do we need to get permission from the various websites to include the reference URLs in the draft? jc > >If we need to cite anything in more specificity, we can do so in an >Appendix, can we not? > >Ted From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Mon Jun 19 12:43:55 2000 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14233 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:43:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id JAA29940; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:26:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 233745 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:26:16 -0700 Received: from motgate.mot.com (motgate.mot.com [129.188.136.100]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id JAA29936 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:26:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: [from pobox.mot.com (pobox.mot.com [129.188.137.100]) by motgate.mot.com (motgate 2.1) with ESMTP id JAA02970 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:23:53 -0700 (MST)] Received: [from az33exi01.corp.mot.com ([199.2.84.10]) by pobox.mot.com (MOT-pobox 2.0) with ESMTP id JAA27398 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:23:50 -0700 (MST)] Received: by AZ33EXI01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:23:49 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:23:47 -0700 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: Austin Bill-P23393 Subject: Re: legalese versus plain english Comments: To: IETF-RUN To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com It is a very common practice to link to web sites without getting permission. There have been a few cases where "deep linking" into the middle of a site and making it look like it is your own content has caused a lawsuit. Linking between related sites is the very nature of the web. They should welcome the additional traffic as well as the increased "relevance rating" they get on certain search engines from having additional links to their site. -- Bill Austin Motorola Bluetooth http://www.motorola.com/bluetooth/ Bluetooth Mailing List http://bluetooth.listbot.com/ Vote for MOT! -- Top Ten Bluetooth Sites http://www.topsitelists.com/bestsites/bluetooth/topsites.cgi?ID=1 > -----Original Message----- > From: JC Dill [mailto:jcdill@VO.CNCHOST.COM] > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 9:07 AM > To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com > Subject: Re: legalese versus plain english > > > On 05:47 AM 6/19/00, Ted Gavin wrote: > >-----Original Message------ > >From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" > >To: IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > >Sent: June 19, 2000 11:26:23 AM GMT > >Subject: Re: legalese versus plain english > > > >I think if we just state > > > >"spamming often constitutes a criminal act, and can result in > >fines, imprisonment and civil lawsuits for damages" > > > >as Donald has laid out, we'll be fine. > > Perfect! > > Thanks gang! > > I'll work on sussing out the AOL cites and then I think we are set. > > Do we need to get permission from the various websites to include the > reference URLs in the draft? > > jc > > > > >If we need to cite anything in more specificity, we can do so in an > >Appendix, can we not? > > > >Ted > From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Mon Jun 19 12:54:36 2000 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14731 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:54:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id JAA00270; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:39:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 233757 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:39:05 -0700 Received: from lukla.Sun.COM (lukla.Sun.COM [192.18.98.31]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id JAA00266 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:39:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from engmail3.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.144.170.5]) by lukla.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04977 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:36:35 -0600 (MDT) Received: from ha-sims.eng.sun.com (phys-thestorka.Eng.Sun.COM [129.146.1.231]) by engmail3.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v1.7) with ESMTP id JAA13337 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:36:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tomjones (tomjones.Eng.Sun.COM [129.146.112.253]) by ha-sims.eng.sun.com (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with SMTP id <0FWE002GPU4X9K@ha-sims.eng.sun.com> for IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:36:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.3.5 SunOS 5.7 sun4u sparc Content-type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-MD5: iBVmHNMgds2L6VsHYFkJ8Q== Message-ID: <0FWE002GQU4X9K@ha-sims.eng.sun.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:34:09 -0700 Reply-To: Peter Trapasso Sender: IETF-RUN From: Peter Trapasso Subject: Re: legalese versus plain english Comments: To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com I agree with Bill on the issue of linking. thanks, --------------------------------------------- Peter Trapasso Senior Web Marketing Specialist/Web Architect Internet Marketing Group Software Products and Platforms >Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:23:47 -0700 >From: Austin Bill-P23393 >Subject: Re: legalese versus plain english >To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com >MIME-version: 1.0 >Comments: To: IETF-RUN > >It is a very common practice to link to web sites without getting >permission. There have been a few cases where "deep linking" into the >middle of a site and making it look like it is your own content has caused a >lawsuit. > >Linking between related sites is the very nature of the web. They should >welcome the additional traffic as well as the increased "relevance rating" >they get on certain search engines from having additional links to their >site. > >-- >Bill Austin >Motorola Bluetooth http://www.motorola.com/bluetooth/ >Bluetooth Mailing List http://bluetooth.listbot.com/ > >Vote for MOT! -- Top Ten Bluetooth Sites >http://www.topsitelists.com/bestsites/bluetooth/topsites.cgi?ID=1 > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: JC Dill [mailto:jcdill@VO.CNCHOST.COM] >> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 9:07 AM >> To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com >> Subject: Re: legalese versus plain english >> >> >> On 05:47 AM 6/19/00, Ted Gavin wrote: >> >-----Original Message------ >> >From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" >> >To: IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM >> >Sent: June 19, 2000 11:26:23 AM GMT >> >Subject: Re: legalese versus plain english >> > >> >I think if we just state >> > >> >"spamming often constitutes a criminal act, and can result in >> >fines, imprisonment and civil lawsuits for damages" >> > >> >as Donald has laid out, we'll be fine. >> >> Perfect! >> >> Thanks gang! >> >> I'll work on sussing out the AOL cites and then I think we are set. >> >> Do we need to get permission from the various websites to include the >> reference URLs in the draft? >> >> jc >> >> > >> >If we need to cite anything in more specificity, we can do so in an >> >Appendix, can we not? >> > >> >Ted >> From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Mon Jun 19 13:30:17 2000 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17424 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:30:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id KAA00582; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 233771 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:14:37 -0700 Received: from rmx602-mta.mail.com (rmx602-mta.mail.com [165.251.48.51]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id KAA00578 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:14:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web621-wrb.mail.com (web621-wrb.mail.com [165.251.33.61]) by rmx602-mta.mail.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA28256 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:12:16 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: mail.com X-Originating-IP: 63.72.77.7 Message-ID: <382785662.961434735347.JavaMail.root@web621-wrb.mail.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:12:15 -0400 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: Ted Gavin Subject: Re: legalese versus plain english Comments: To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter dixit: > I agree with Bill on the issue of linking. Bill scribed: >> It is a very common practice to link to web sites >> without getting permission. There have been a few >> cases where "deep linking" into the middle of a site >> and making it look like it is your own content has >> caused a lawsuit. [snip...] I agree with this, with one caveat. If we are quoting legal precedent or established case law, we should be referencing the court docket and ruling information. The link to website(s) can be included as a reference, but, as we all know, websites come and go. Court references tend to be a bit more...permanent...of a reference tool. Ted (just my $0.02) From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Mon Jun 19 15:20:44 2000 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21102 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:20:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id MAA02301; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:05:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 233998 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:05:08 -0700 Received: from mailhost.atelier.fr (bbs.atelier.fr [212.73.218.8]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id MAA02297 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:05:04 -0700 (PDT) References: <80brksgb70l7tqq127dc6ra6ricmkbd62l@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 07:47:55 +0200 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: ColorNet Robin Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: Real Espresso Coffee Comments: To: jcdill@VO.CNCHOST.COM To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com In-Reply-To: <80brksgb70l7tqq127dc6ra6ricmkbd62l@4ax.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit jcdill@VO.CNCHOST.COM a écrit: >If there was ever any doubt (as if) that our draft is sorely >needed, here is a textbook case in point. > >jc Sorry to but in - but again taking up my minority viewpoint of some months ago I feel the argument is to a great extent out of court. IMHO 1) Looking ahead 3 years bandwidth and access payments will not be a problem 2) The argument regarding ONLINE OFFLINE legislation still holds good and 55% of US surface mail is junk mail 3) What constitutes SPAM remains a moot question - and the implications for censorship of free circulation of information outweigh local skin deep irritation - however justified that remains. 4) With IPv6 there will be ways of tracking and backtracking SPAM will be the rule rather than the exception 5) This is an unfortunate spin off of this stage of the internet but cannot be sensibly fought against as a purely online phenomenon 6) Perhaps closer ties with ISTF may be thought worthwhile - as ISTF will be looking to IETF in the area of Security and Privacy best regards Jonathan Robin ISSG ISTF