When the <DELETE> key
reimburses people for the costs incurred from transporting, storing, and
retrieving unsolicited email, then simply clicking <DELETE> might be a
viable alternative. Unfortunately, the vast majority of costs of spam are
borne by recipients, and not senders. That makes clicking <DELETE> about as
meaningful a solution as hanging up on a collect telephone call after you have
been forced to accept the charges.

It is true that many laws can't effectively reach people who are operating completely outside the country, there are two things to remember:

First, because most spam advertises goods or services offered by North American-based entities (for example, get-rich-quick schemes and quack medical remedies being sold out of someones basement), we advocate anti-spam laws in which the focus is not where the email came from but on whose behalf the spam was sent. If the law applies to the advertiser -- the entity profiting from the activity -- it doesn't matter where the spam originates.

Second, the reach of a law outside the borders of the country it is leglislated in is tenuous at best, however that fact does not negate the need for or effectiveness of laws against those breaking them localy. It can be very difficult to bring a murderer to justice if they escape abroad, but no one could seriously argue that this fact means domestic murder laws are unnecessary or irrelevant. Spam isn't comparable to murder, but if our judicial systems means anything, the same principles of justice should apply.

Not at all. CAUCE believes in the right to free speech, but having free speech doesn't spammers the right to force others to hear their message. CAUCE does not support the outlawing of commercial speech, but CAUCE does believe that those who wish to engage in commercial speech should either bear their own costs or limit their cost-shifting to those who have overtly affirmatively expressed a willingness to bear those costs.

This is not a new concept in the law. There is an example of this style of management already practiced in the United States. This law prohibits the sending of all unsolicited advertisements via fax machines. The law has been challenged in court stating a violation of on First AmendmentFree Speech grounds and each time courts have upheld the law because it is not censorship... it's about making the advertiser bear their own costs.

When spammers try to hide their destructive and often illegal activities behind the mask of ``Free Speech``, it is helpful to remember the words of US Federal Judge Stanley Sporkin in a case called Turner Broadcasting v. FCC where the plaintiffs sought to defend their activities on First Amendment grounds:

"[They] have come to court not because their freedom of speech is seriously threatened but because their profits are; to dress up their complaints in First Amendment garb demeans the principles for which the First Amendment stands and the protections it was designed to afford."

When spammers try to cloak their damaging, often fraudulent activities in this same First Amendment garb, all defenders of free speech should be outraged. In summary, one of the best analyses of this theme comes in a famous case about junk postal mail. In the Supreme Court's decision in Rowan v. U.S. Post Office, the court held:

"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or to view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. . . We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has the right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. . . We repeat, the right of a mailer stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain."

Recently, there have been a lot of unsolicited bounces from ISPs which are created due to the following chain of events:

1. Spammer uses an infected computer on an ISP network (zombie) to send spam


2. Spam is sent with a forged sender address (aka. From), that is not hosted by the users ISP.


3. Spam is rejected during delivery to recipient mail server and the receiving ISP mail server generates a bounce to the original, forged sender.

Here are some possible solutions to this problem (your ISP may need to be involved to manage these recomendations):

1. Use some form of authentication on your domain; SPF, Sender ID or Domain Keys Identified Mail.
   While these solutions will not solve the bounces coming into your network, but will help ISPs checking messages supporting these solutions determine if the original messages that they are receiving (and subsequently sending a bounce to you) are from your network.


2. Implement a solution like BATV for your own messages, to help determine legitimate bounces from your network, this allows you to ignore all bounces received that do not comply with your configuration.

There are many ways in which spammers can get your email address. (no order)

• From harvesting posts to UseNet, webpages, blogs, chat rooms or other easily accessed forms
• From mailing lists, contest pages or free offer sites
• Compromised websites, phishing domains or chain letter scams (i.e forward to ten friends plus this address for a free copy of <software>)
• Viruses built to harvest address books that you might be listed in
• By guessing, commonly referred to as a dictionary attack
• Buying, renting or trading email lists from each other, disgruntled employees or List Brokerage companies
• By scanning domain registration contact information listed in whois
• Using social engineering to acquire information
• Internet directories, profile pages and social networking sites
• From a previous owner of a recycled email address