internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
List archive
- From: "Michael Thomas" <mdthomas AT mindspring.com>
- To: internetworkers AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
- Subject: Re: Legal Spam?
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 16:22:02 -0400
Though /bills/ have been passed, no /laws/ have been passed.
Senate Commerce Committee will probably send CAN-SPAM (S 630)
to the senate floor tomorrow.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16699-2002May1
Not as strong as H.R. 95 and crucially lacks the right
for consumers to sue spammers. With H.R. 95 as law,
SpamAssasian and SpamCop can be augmented by
SpamAttorney. (Though the entire process can't be
automated, a lot of it can.)
Other good resources:
http://www.cauce.org/legislation/index.shtml
http://www.cdt.org/legislation/107th/junkemail/
> On Wed, 15 May 2002, David Wagoner wrote:
> ->vendor no less, that claims to be legal because it
> ->includes the way to be removed.
>
> Links on anti spam "bill" info here:
>
> http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~gcaselton/spam/bill-s1618.html
> http://www.fridgemagnet.org.uk/spam.html
> http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/spam.htm
>
> And others if you search for "Bill S. 1618 TITLE III" in Google.
>
> Cheers
> KJ
-
Re: Legal Spam?,
Michael Thomas, 05/15/2002
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Legal Spam?, David Wagoner, 05/15/2002
- Re: Legal Spam?, K. Jo Garner, 05/15/2002
- Re: Legal Spam?, David Wagoner, 05/15/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.