On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Paul Day wrote:

 > On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Michael McKinnon wrote:
 > > Yes, that's right, they will begin drafting legislation "as soon as
 > > possible".  But exactly when is "as soon as possible"?  The stumbling block
 > > will be in devising a legal definition of what "spam" actually is.
 > 
 > The Western Australian Internet Assoc. defined spam in their Spam Code of
 > Conduct which all their members (WAIA run WAIX - largest peering point in
 > .au) must stick to. Might not be a definition everyone agrees on, but
 > could be a good start: http://www.waia.asn.au/info/spamcode.shtml

A start, and applicable re an ISP conduct code, but it doesn't go nearly
far enough; it still permits spamming where people are 'identifiable' or
provide an opt-out reply address; we all know what that's worth.  Damned
if I want to spend half an hour a day dealing with unsolicited junkmail,
even if there were better than 10% odds of 'unsubscribing' working!

Actually the definition of spam at http://www.caube.org.au/whatis.htm is
very much simpler, much more direct, and a good deal more adequate.

 > Either way, getting a little off-topic for this list. :)

I don't think so.  How many messages to this list over the last couple
of years have been about registrars spamming what they see as potential
clients, from whois information or otherwise.  A decent definition of
spam, and penalties even if only for Australian-based spammers - who are
becoming much more rife thanks to 'people' like the Which Company in WA
- would be the first coalition government policy I've ever welcomed :)

Cheers, Ian