In article , snipped-for-privacy@invalid.invalid mentioned...
You know, Jim, I had a lot more respect for you before you said that.
Think about this: Laws don't legalize anything, they restrict what was not restricted previously.
In case you hadn't noticed, there were absolutely no restrictions whatsoever at the federal level on spamming up until now. So how can any law 'legalize' or legitimize' something which was totally unrestricted (i.e. legal and legitimate) before? I competely fail to understand the logic behind your statement.
Furthermore, don't parrot what the hard-core absolutists and naysayers in the anti-spam community are saying. We've waited for more than five years to get something done at the federal level, and it may take some time to get something effective implemented. Between the legal and technological methods, something will ewventually get done to stop this scourge that has overtaken the net. Eventually we'll see those spammers in jail and out of business. As for Linford, he, a Brit, should mind his own business and keep out of the political and legislative affairs of the U.S.
Remember, I'm a Californian, and I would've liked to see the recently signed 'opt-in only' law go into effect come Jan 1st. But I would have had little hope that anything would become of it, since it has been five years since the first California laws went into effect, and they have had almost zero enforcement. :-(
Have you read SB877? If not, I suggest you do. It has some good points. And you also have to realize that the FTC has to promulgate regulations to implement this law. So you may see some changes as time goes on.
If you want to discuss this further, you will have to reply to me by email, because I will not read or answer any further of this nonsense. See my .sig for email address and instructions.
--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson wrote (in ) about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law', on Thu, 18 Dec 2003:
Leftist views creeping in there, Jim! The opt-out provision is there to benefit BUSINESS.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
I'm not anti-business, I'm anti-in-your-face. I was one of the first to sign up for the Do-Not-Call list. I got two or three calls after that... chewed them out so royally I've not had another call.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
The way I read it everyone gets a free shot at spamming you, provided they have an Opt-Out method as part of the E-mail. So I foresee a torrent of US-originated spam crap.
As for foreign-originated spam, it has no effect whatsoever.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
4ax.com>) about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law', on Thu, 18 : >Dec 2003: : >>Our "wonderful" representatives in Congress have passed, and Dubya has : >>signed into law "Can Spam".... : >>
: >>
formatting link
: >>
: >>This law is a joke... it requires OPT OUT, thus legalizing a whole : >>torrent of spam. : >>
: >>I suggest you contact your Representative and your Senators and suggest : >>that their voting for OPT OUT = VOTE OUT the dummy ;-) : >
: >Leftist views creeping in there, Jim! The opt-out provision is there to : >benefit BUSINESS. : : I'm not anti-business, I'm anti-in-your-face. I was one of the first : to sign up for the Do-Not-Call list. I got two or three calls after : that... chewed them out so royally I've not had another call.
First they have to drum up a lot of extra SPAM emails, then they can offer GRANTS from our tax money for people to start up those new DO-NOT-SPAM list businesses. ;-)
Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprizez };-) Web Site -
formatting link
Email - snipped-for-privacy@comXcast.net Remove - SPAM and X to contact me
--
This email ain't infected, dude!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Of course, a minor gain for some BUSINESSES is far more important than a minor gain for most PEOPLE. After all, we live in a society of businesses, not people.
But you expressed a leftist view, so we can't possibly believe you, can we? (;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
I read in sci.electronics.design that Tim Auton wrote (in ) about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law', on Fri, 19 Dec 2003:
Well, you are of course being ironic. But it's not a clear-cut issue. If you benefit a business, you benefit to some extent everyone who works for it, and that's often a LOT of people. A balance is needed, and unlimited spam isn't at the balance point.
If opt-out means that you get an initial message and you can be *sure* of getting no more from that source, it's practicable. You can't have a full opt-in system, because you wouldn't get the first message unless you opted-in in advance. Not easy to do that!
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
It wasn't you're chewing them out that did it, necessarily. You just got your blood pressure up, maybe. If you read the Atty Gen info when you signed up, it (ours) said that it takes up to 3 months to get processed, that, or the law is that telejocks have to update their lists every quarter.
You can still get calls from people who you do business with like SBC. You have to ask them to put you on their DNC list.
As much as I hate getting most first messages, you're right. Within say 30mi of here, we have 2 mailing businesses. One was supposed to have folded by now. They send out AOL CDs and all that other crap you get in the mail. I don't mind getting a 50% discount on a oil change/lube job. I'll never get the coupon out of our poor excuse for a newspaper either 'cause I can barely tolerate reading the front page.
But if I need viagra, I'd rather google and opt-in. WHere's the happy medium?
Not a US citizen myself, but as I understand it there is quite a bit of freedom in the United States. This probably also extends to businesses who wish to exercise their freedom and right to block any kind of mail traffic they find abusive of their resources.
For you fellow techies who wish to join a new effort against spam, please check out my Weighted Private Block List project @
formatting link
If you get your mail (and spam) through a UNIX-like system and use a statistical filter such as spamprobe or spam assassin, I have scripts that automate the task of collecting IP addresses that are spamming; this data is then uploaded periodically to my central database, where it is combined with other peoples' spam reports to automatically block spammers.
My system doesn't care whether the spam is politically endorsed, or not.
WPBL is similar to spamcop, but there are notable differences. Spamcop also uses manual reports from people complaining about spam. When people only report what they dislike, the system never sees the other essential data -- the non-spam that's being sent perpetually. When you automate everything you reduce this personal bias and anger effect.
More importantly, spamcop is way too aggressive in blocking IPs (I have plenty of experience dealing with this stuff through my work with mail system admins). bl.spamcop.net is not appropriate for use on most mail servers. WPBL is going to be more cautious about blocking IPs.
Ironically, most spam is generated to promote US businesses, although it floods the rest of the worlds' inboxes indiscriminantly, us non-US residents are not protected by the spam laws. The only way to deal with spam is for the US government to take action against the companies being spamvertised, as well as the senders of the spam. I have never been in favour of the death penalty until now; however, I think that it may be the best deterrent for spamming and the only way to stop this large scale abuse. Regards, Allen
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.