5 ms·

Surprise! If you’re a government it’s pretty easy to require this. You just require it and it’s required.

JaggedJax 6y ago
So true. Let's hope we don't have to go that far with every country imposing their rule on every person in the world. We have too much of that already.
geofft 6y ago
You have to be a dictatorship, though, because it's pretty hard to imagine any representative government wanting this. And it's pretty hard to be a dictatorship and remain in power, actually. More so if you give businesses a financial reason and not just a moral one to leave.
masukomi 6y ago
You mean in the same way that spam email and spam calls to mobile numbers where it might actually cost folks money to answer are illegal in the US? Yeah, those requirements are so effective.
- acdha 6y ago
  Yes, exactly the same way. European carriers are liable for those and nobody I know in Europe has a problem. American carriers have successfully convinced politicians and “libertarians” that they shouldn’t be expected to validate network access since not accepting money to deliver spam would reduce their profits by a trivial fraction.
jpindar 6y ago
So you're not going to allow explicit no-reply addresses. Then they'll just ignore all incoming mail to the sending address. Or are you going to require that all businesses respond to all emails they receive? Will an automated response do?
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  If you are government you can just say there needs to be an email address and reasonable requests to that address have to be responded to in a reasonable amount of time. The rest can be handled by the courts. It’s not that difficult, really.
  - clusterfish 6y ago
    Such vague laws are costly bullshit to everyone involved. How many times did you personally advance the legal precedent on your own dime to be so content with that approach?
    - tinus_hn 6y ago
      That’s the choice you make. You can either offer a working return address or you can waste your time and money ‘advancing the legal precedent’.
      - clusterfish 6y ago
        I said you personally, that is, as a violated consumer suing a business. If you don't want to waste your own life fighting over your proposed vague law in court, you have no business to impose that on others. All too easy to propose a crap solution when it won't be you paying the price.
        tinus_hn 6y ago
        Consumers indeed have no business imposing laws on others. That’s the job of governments, as is enforcing laws.

So true. Let's hope we don't have to go that far with every country imposing their rule on every person in the world. We have too much of that already.

geofft 6y ago

You have to be a dictatorship, though, because it's pretty hard to imagine any representative government wanting this. And it's pretty hard to be a dictatorship and remain in power, actually. More so if you give businesses a financial reason and not just a moral one to leave.

masukomi 6y ago

You mean in the same way that spam email and spam calls to mobile numbers where it might actually cost folks money to answer are illegal in the US? Yeah, those requirements are so effective.

acdha 6y ago
Yes, exactly the same way. European carriers are liable for those and nobody I know in Europe has a problem. American carriers have successfully convinced politicians and “libertarians” that they shouldn’t be expected to validate network access since not accepting money to deliver spam would reduce their profits by a trivial fraction.

jpindar 6y ago

So you're not going to allow explicit no-reply addresses. Then they'll just ignore all incoming mail to the sending address. Or are you going to require that all businesses respond to all emails they receive? Will an automated response do?

tinus_hn 6y ago
If you are government you can just say there needs to be an email address and reasonable requests to that address have to be responded to in a reasonable amount of time. The rest can be handled by the courts. It’s not that difficult, really.
- clusterfish 6y ago
  Such vague laws are costly bullshit to everyone involved. How many times did you personally advance the legal precedent on your own dime to be so content with that approach?
  - tinus_hn 6y ago
    That’s the choice you make. You can either offer a working return address or you can waste your time and money ‘advancing the legal precedent’.
    - clusterfish 6y ago
      I said you personally, that is, as a violated consumer suing a business. If you don't want to waste your own life fighting over your proposed vague law in court, you have no business to impose that on others. All too easy to propose a crap solution when it won't be you paying the price.
      - tinus_hn 6y ago
        Consumers indeed have no business imposing laws on others. That’s the job of governments, as is enforcing laws.