Anti Spam Legislation vs Spam realities and ISP staffing
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<-- 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? I wrote a bit of a commentary of my own: http://www.blakjak.net/node/view/261 However wonder if this has come to the attention of anyone else yet... The first thing that jumps into my head is that ISPs are going to wind up having to do all the investigative legwork on the complaints they receive - and not many ISPS I know of are staffed to support this. Antispam costs for all providers going up - and probably going up in relation to the size of their customer base. Hmmm.... Mark.
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.
My first advice Mark is to read the bill and the notes rather than the press reports.
This much is obvious. I had a inkling that the reporter must have mixed up that minor detail. However I have not yet had opportunity to read over the bill myself - must try to rectify that. That said I think its a timely moment to bring this issue up for the attention of NO's again.
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).
Which to my mind raises the question of enforcability? I have to assume that they're wanting to get a level of sign-on from overseas enforcement agencies and governments? (Its not a silly way to go, but it'll mean relatively slow visible benefit as far as joe user is concerned...)
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.
Does that translate to 'Telecom' for most of NZ? Oh dear... But in seriousness even if it is clarified as being 'the other provider' theres other holes that need to be covered - such as whether relaying alone is considered culpability, and whether ISPs are going to get barrages of 'look, its illegal, so stop it now!' and wind up with a big support-overhead in terms of training even more obstinate customers how to read and interpret mail headers..
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.
I wonder if anyone on-list is already in the process of preparing a submission? I would happily defer to the expert opinion of someone more qualified than myself, and instead offer my support.. (Maybe we need it as something similar as a petition in order to put up a united voice?) Mark.
This part of the bill is not great, in my opinion, and will be the key area INZ will try to change at select committee. In fact support for the bill beyond the select committee stage will depend on whether the select committee makes any changes. The rest of the bill looks pretty good. We have engaged a lawyer to give us a detailed clause by clause analysis to highlight any other potential problems. We will make that analysis public and will be keen for ISPs to do submissions also to the select committee. We hope to have something out in a few weeks. DPF PS - InternetNZ PR on the bill is at http://www.internetnz.net.nz/news/2005-07-28-anti-spam.htm
-----Original Message----- From: Mark Foster [mailto:blakjak(a)blakjak.net] Sent: Saturday, 30 July 2005 10:51 a.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: [nznog] Anti Spam Legislation vs Spam realities and ISP staffing
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<--
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?
I wrote a bit of a commentary of my own:
http://www.blakjak.net/node/view/261
However wonder if this has come to the attention of anyone else yet... The first thing that jumps into my head is that ISPs are going to wind up having to do all the investigative legwork on the complaints they receive - and not many ISPS I know of are staffed to support this. Antispam costs for all providers going up - and probably going up in relation to the size of their customer base.
Hmmm....
Mark.
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
participants (3)
-
David Farrar -
Mark Foster -
Simon Lyall