On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Mark Foster wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=5&ObjectID=10338203
My review of this article noted this paragraph:
--8<-- Internet users will complain in the first instance to their internet provider about spam email, and the Department of Internal Affairs will act as an internet watchdog if the matter is taken further. --8<--
My first advice Mark is to read the bill and the notes rather than the press reports. For instance the bill covers all email sent to a NZ email address not just email sent within NZ (which is basically the opposite of what the Herald article says) See Section 4(2) (page 27-28 of the pdf).
Now did I get the wrong end of the stick here, or is this saying that the onus of the ISP that provides connectivity to the Spam Receiver to act on complaints - or the DIA will be hounding them?
Shouldn't the source ISP, and not the destination, be the people responsible for dealing with their own spam sources?
Actually Section 23(a)(i) says they should "Make a complaint to the relevant service provider". I'm still trying to work out exactly what a "service provider" is and "relevant" could be the sender's rather than the receivers. I have a horrible feeling that it might be the layer-1 provider.
However wonder if this has come to the attention of anyone else yet...
This bill is already being looked at by people and I would definitely encourage those who might be interested to read it and make submissions when it goes to select committee. -- Simon J. Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.