OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law

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 ;-)

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson
Loading thread data ...

CC your congressman with every opt-out you send!;-)

--
7 days!


Michael A. Terrell
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

Can non-US residents opt-out (of US generated spam)?

Reply to
Ian Stirling

That's as good as Jim posting all those state rep's e-mail addys. Excellent.

Mike

Reply to
Active8

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:###
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, Dar

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 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Woodgate

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      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

[snip]

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      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson
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).
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Bill Garber

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.

Tim

--
The .sig is dead.
Reply to
Tim Auton

[snip]

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 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Woodgate

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 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Woodgate

Virtually all spam sent right now has an opt out method. However, the spammers use it to make a new database of "live" addresses.

So, how can one dare to use the opt out, knowing that doing so will just validate their email address in some spammer's database?

-Chuck

John Woodgate wrote:

Reply to
Chuck Harris

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.

BRs, Mike

Reply to
Active8

Right. We want pictures.

Reply to
Active8

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?

BRs, Mike

Reply to
Active8

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.

--
Jem Berkes
http://www.sysdesign.ca/
Reply to
Jem Berkes

Sounds like a Johnny-come-lately version of SpamCop.net

SpamCop uses SpamAssassin, its own self-generated block lists, as well as several other block lists generated world-wide.

(I am *only* a satisfied user... no business association with SpamCop.net))

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

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.

--
Jem Berkes
http://www.sysdesign.ca/
Reply to
Jem Berkes

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

Reply to
AllenB

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.