What we need to do is implement an extension to the mail protocol which would provide a virtual equivalent to a "No Solicitors" sign on my doorstep. I am no lawyer but I expect that if I put a "NO SOLICITORS - TRESPASSERS WILL BE PROSECUTED" sign at the beginning of my long driveway out in the middle of nowhere, I could realistically get a vacuum salesman busted if he had the nerver to stroll up onto my private property.
To implement a virtual equivalent of this, incoming mail would need to merely declare what kind of mail they are: anonymous, solicitous, or normal. The mail server can be configured to accept whatever categories they prefer.
Once this protocol is in place, legislators would merely need to require that incoming mail properly represents itself as either anonymous (ie invalid/nonexistent return address including anon spam), solicitous (spam with valid return address), or normal (valid return address).
This doesn't seem to restrict speech at all. People could still send anonymous mail if they prefer, or solicit customers, or continue to use email as it was intended.
But people would be enabled in much the same way that we are already enabled in real life to control access to our property.
People would be able to ignore anonymous or unsolicited mail if they choose, and people would still be able to send/receive it if they choose also.
This seems a reasonable compromise to me.. All it is really requiring people to do is declare mail as anon, commercial, or normal mail.
If someone has a reason why requiring people to accurately declare which of the three categories their mail is any kind of restriction, I would like to hear it.
Slashdot Mirror
What we need to do is implement an extension to the mail protocol which would provide a virtual equivalent to a "No Solicitors" sign on my doorstep. I am no lawyer but I expect that if I put a "NO SOLICITORS - TRESPASSERS WILL BE PROSECUTED" sign at the beginning of my long driveway out in the middle of nowhere, I could realistically get a vacuum salesman busted if he had the nerver to stroll up onto my private property.
To implement a virtual equivalent of this, incoming mail would need to merely declare what kind of mail they are: anonymous, solicitous, or normal. The mail server can be configured to accept whatever categories they prefer.
Once this protocol is in place, legislators would merely need to require that incoming mail properly represents itself as either anonymous (ie invalid/nonexistent return address including anon spam), solicitous (spam with valid return address), or normal (valid return address).
This doesn't seem to restrict speech at all. People could still send anonymous mail if they prefer, or solicit customers, or continue to use email as it was intended.
But people would be enabled in much the same way that we are already enabled in real life to control access to our property.
People would be able to ignore anonymous or unsolicited mail if they choose, and people would still be able to send/receive it if they choose also.
This seems a reasonable compromise to me.. All it is really requiring people to do is declare mail as anon, commercial, or normal mail.
If someone has a reason why requiring people to accurately declare which of the three categories their mail is any kind of restriction, I would like to hear it.