Bill Nash wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, George Toft wrote:
> 
> > The problem is in the content of the e-mail.  This is much like the
> > highway.  We pay our licensing fee to the state (fee to the ISP), and we
> > load up our car and drive (send e-mail).  How can you tell that the
> > person in the car committed some crime (violated AUP)?  You can't, until
> > someone else complains.  Make the roads toll-roads, like California's
> > private highways (require SSL), and all you've done is slow down the
> > system.
> 
>         Good points. In the case of a legitimate ISP or other hosting
> business, a chunk of content in your AUP specifically prohibiting spam and
> a no-nonsense attitude would go a long way to discouraging this kind of
> behavior. What about a reserved right within your AUP stating violators of
> the spam policy are subject to a nice fat 'service charge'? Again, hit
> them in the wallet. My entire idea is focused on accountability and being
> able to pin down the spam to a responsible party.

One of the good laws in the Country of California says we could nail our
clients $50 per violation.  We clearly stated that in our contracts, and
it kept spam under control.  One of our resellers got hit by a spammer
"hit and run" - he was more careful about his clientele after that
incident.


George