spam canned.

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Jim Watt, Aug 31, 2005.

  1. Jim Watt

    Jim Watt Guest

    WASHINGTON, D.C. - Three individuals have been indicted by a federal
    grand jury in Phoenix on charges of violating the CAN-SPAM Act of
    2003, along with federal obscenity, money laundering and conspiracy
    charges, Acting Assistant Attorney General John C. Richter of the
    Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton of the District of
    Arizona announced today. The CAN-SPAM Act is a federal law designed to
    crack down on the transmission of bulk, unsolicited commercial
    electronic mail messages.

    http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/August/05_crm_431.htm

    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Aug 31, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jim Watt

    Imhotep Guest

    Jim Watt wrote:

    > WASHINGTON, D.C. - Three individuals have been indicted by a federal
    > grand jury in Phoenix on charges of violating the CAN-SPAM Act of
    > 2003, along with federal obscenity, money laundering and conspiracy
    > charges, Acting Assistant Attorney General John C. Richter of the
    > Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton of the District of
    > Arizona announced today. The CAN-SPAM Act is a federal law designed to
    > crack down on the transmission of bulk, unsolicited commercial
    > electronic mail messages.
    >
    > http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/August/05_crm_431.htm
    >
    > --
    > Jim Watt
    > http://www.gibnet.com


    Humm... 3 people out of 3 million caught. Clearly, CAN-SPAM has failed.
    Tougher new laws are needed...Unless you are Microsoft which is actively
    trying to persuade legislators to NOT create tougher new laws. No doubt
    Microsoft has monetary gain from SPAMMERS....
     
    Imhotep, Aug 31, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David H. Lipman, Aug 31, 2005
    #3
  4. Jim Watt

    Steve Welsh Guest

    Well, yes! But unfortunately recent history has taught us that that is
    the only thing the US government has to offer to the world. On topic, I
    wouldn't trust a Microsoft executive VP to push my grand-daughter's push
    chair, nor any member of RIAA, Warner Bros, etc, etc.

    They are ALL attempting to dictate to YOU what they consider computer
    security is.... unfortunately, they seem to be hell bent on making it
    safe from you - the computer owner and user, whilst still losing sight
    of the fact that the 'bad guys' are persistently, and successfully
    targeting in the main the third class offerings of the Microsoft
    Corporation.

    I don't do hacking, I study this from interest, but I have had for the
    last few months a quiet personal bet that within 18 months a major
    international player (company-wise) will go bust, thanks to their total
    reliance on good-ol' M$ software.

    I look forward to being proved wrong! (The local history of my employer
    seems to indicate otherwise ;) )

    David H. Lipman wrote:
    > From: "Imhotep" <>
    >
    > |
    > | Humm... 3 people out of 3 million caught. Clearly, CAN-SPAM has failed.
    > | Tougher new laws are needed...Unless you are Microsoft which is actively
    > | trying to persuade legislators to NOT create tougher new laws. No doubt
    > | Microsoft has monetary gain from SPAMMERS....
    >
    > Pure FUD !
    >
     
    Steve Welsh, Sep 1, 2005
    #4
  5. Jim Watt

    Imhotep Guest

    David H. Lipman wrote:

    > From: "Imhotep" <>
    >
    > |
    > | Humm... 3 people out of 3 million caught. Clearly, CAN-SPAM has failed.
    > | Tougher new laws are needed...Unless you are Microsoft which is actively
    > | trying to persuade legislators to NOT create tougher new laws. No doubt
    > | Microsoft has monetary gain from SPAMMERS....
    >
    > Pure FUD !
    >


    Try expanding on your comment. Which part, in you belief, is FUD?

    Imhotep
     
    Imhotep, Sep 1, 2005
    #5
  6. Jim Watt

    Imhotep Guest

    Steve Welsh wrote:

    > Well, yes! But unfortunately recent history has taught us that that is
    > the only thing the US government has to offer to the world. On topic, I
    > wouldn't trust a Microsoft executive VP to push my grand-daughter's push
    > chair, nor any member of RIAA, Warner Bros, etc, etc.
    >
    > They are ALL attempting to dictate to YOU what they consider computer
    > security is.... unfortunately, they seem to be hell bent on making it
    > safe from you - the computer owner and user, whilst still losing sight
    > of the fact that the 'bad guys' are persistently, and successfully
    > targeting in the main the third class offerings of the Microsoft
    > Corporation.
    >
    > I don't do hacking, I study this from interest, but I have had for the
    > last few months a quiet personal bet that within 18 months a major
    > international player (company-wise) will go bust, thanks to their total
    > reliance on good-ol' M$ software.
    >
    > I look forward to being proved wrong! (The local history of my employer
    > seems to indicate otherwise ;) )
    >
    > David H. Lipman wrote:
    >> From: "Imhotep" <>
    >>
    >> |
    >> | Humm... 3 people out of 3 million caught. Clearly, CAN-SPAM has failed.
    >> | Tougher new laws are needed...Unless you are Microsoft which is
    >> | actively trying to persuade legislators to NOT create tougher new laws.
    >> | No doubt Microsoft has monetary gain from SPAMMERS....
    >>
    >> Pure FUD !
    >>


    Even more funny is the fact that their plans are wide out in the open and
    yet you have people say that's "FUD"...if people read more, you would not
    have to explains things over, and over, and over again...
     
    Imhotep, Sep 1, 2005
    #6
  7. From: "Imhotep" <>

    | David H. Lipman wrote:
    |
    >> From: "Imhotep" <>
    >>

    |>> Humm... 3 people out of 3 million caught. Clearly, CAN-SPAM has failed.
    |>> Tougher new laws are needed...Unless you are Microsoft which is actively
    |>> trying to persuade legislators to NOT create tougher new laws. No doubt
    |>> Microsoft has monetary gain from SPAMMERS....
    >>
    >> Pure FUD !
    >>

    | Try expanding on your comment. Which part, in you belief, is FUD?
    |
    | Imhotep

    "No doubt Microsoft has monetary gain from SPAMMERS...."

    I doubt it.

    --
    Dave
    http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
    http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
     
    David H. Lipman, Sep 1, 2005
    #7
  8. Jim Watt

    Imhotep Guest

    David H. Lipman wrote:

    > From: "Imhotep" <>
    >
    > | David H. Lipman wrote:
    > |
    >>> From: "Imhotep" <>
    >>>

    > |>> Humm... 3 people out of 3 million caught. Clearly, CAN-SPAM has
    > |>> failed. Tougher new laws are needed...Unless you are Microsoft which
    > |>> is actively trying to persuade legislators to NOT create tougher new
    > |>> laws. No doubt Microsoft has monetary gain from SPAMMERS....
    >>>
    >>> Pure FUD !
    >>>

    > | Try expanding on your comment. Which part, in you belief, is FUD?
    > |
    > | Imhotep
    >
    > "No doubt Microsoft has monetary gain from SPAMMERS...."
    >
    > I doubt it.
    >


    Ah, OK, let's start by reviewing the data with pure logic. Let's start with
    some data that I think we can both agree with.

    1) Microsoft only does things when those things befit Microsoft. In other
    words think about this. Microsoft's users have been complaining about SPAM
    for years. Yet what software changes or additions has Microsoft put into
    their software to help this? Damn, even Linux/BSD users have email clients
    with built in SpamAssassin client plugin modules (reference KDE's KMail).
    Yet, even when Microsoft's users have been jumping up and down in
    frustration, they go out and try to convince the NV gov/people that they
    SHOULD NOT pass a law that clearly protects computer users. Ask yourself
    why.

    2) CAN-SPAM is a failure. Pure and simple. So why the lie to the NV
    gov/people? Let's look at this simply. Anytime someone lies to you when
    they are trying to sell something to you, watch out.

    3) Calling SPAMMERS "email marketers' is the same old technique of sugar
    coating an issue. Again, why not just call it what it is?

    As with anything in life, when investigating someone look for the motive.
    Understanding someone's motive will reveal the truth.

    Now, you can disagree with me as to Microsoft's motive for such and
    irresponsible stance on SPAM if you want. However, I think the statement
    about Microsoft benefiting for SPAMING companies an honest, and high
    probable, statement.

    If you think their motive is something else, please say what you think it
    is. I will honestly entertain the idea.

    Imhotep
     
    Imhotep, Sep 1, 2005
    #8
  9. Jim Watt

    Dazz Guest

    On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:01:17 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
    <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

    >From: "Imhotep" <>
    >
    >| David H. Lipman wrote:
    >|
    >>> From: "Imhotep" <>
    >>>

    >|>> Humm... 3 people out of 3 million caught. Clearly, CAN-SPAM has failed.
    >|>> Tougher new laws are needed...Unless you are Microsoft which is actively
    >|>> trying to persuade legislators to NOT create tougher new laws. No doubt
    >|>> Microsoft has monetary gain from SPAMMERS....
    >>>
    >>> Pure FUD !
    >>>

    >| Try expanding on your comment. Which part, in you belief, is FUD?
    >|
    >| Imhotep
    >
    >"No doubt Microsoft has monetary gain from SPAMMERS...."
    >
    >I doubt it.


    Perhaps we should let Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group
    head, Ryan Hamlin, tell us.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3384447a28,00.html

    "Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group, headed by Ryan Hamlin,
    is celebrating a blow against spam in the US after securing a $US7
    million settlement from former spammer Scott Richter, who Mr Hamlin
    describes as the third largest spammer in the US, responsible for
    sending out more than 20 billion spam messages in just one year."

    "However, he says the New Zealand Government's Unsolicited Electronic
    Messages Bill is "too broad" and could impinge on "the amazing vehicle
    of e-mail marketing". "

    "Mr Hamlin says Microsoft would like to see the bill changed so that
    businesses could be confident they could continue to use databases
    that they had already compiled to send out e-mail."

    "He also wants definitions in the bill changed so that companies would
    be able to e-mail information about new products and services to
    customers, even if they had opted out of receiving e-mail about other
    services they had bought from the company in the past."

    "Microsoft is keen to stamp out spam, but Mr Hamlin is concerned the
    bill as it stands could prevent businesses from sending out e-mails to
    people who had been their customers."

    "He says businesses ought to be able to send unsolicited e-mail to
    people even if they are unsure if they have a pre-existing business
    relationship with them."

    Hmmmm. "...the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing"?

    "...ought to be able to send unsolicited e-mail to people even if they
    are unsure if they have a pre-existing business relationship with
    them"?

    If it looks like Spam, it sounds like Spam and it tastes like Spam, it
    probably is Spam. :-(

    Dazz
     
    Dazz, Sep 2, 2005
    #9
  10. From: "Dazz" <>

    |
    | Perhaps we should let Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group
    | head, Ryan Hamlin, tell us.
    |
    | http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3384447a28,00.html
    |
    | "Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group, headed by Ryan Hamlin,
    | is celebrating a blow against spam in the US after securing a $US7
    | million settlement from former spammer Scott Richter, who Mr Hamlin
    | describes as the third largest spammer in the US, responsible for
    | sending out more than 20 billion spam messages in just one year."
    |
    | "However, he says the New Zealand Government's Unsolicited Electronic
    | Messages Bill is "too broad" and could impinge on "the amazing vehicle
    | of e-mail marketing". "
    |
    | "Mr Hamlin says Microsoft would like to see the bill changed so that
    | businesses could be confident they could continue to use databases
    | that they had already compiled to send out e-mail."
    |
    | "He also wants definitions in the bill changed so that companies would
    | be able to e-mail information about new products and services to
    | customers, even if they had opted out of receiving e-mail about other
    | services they had bought from the company in the past."
    |
    | "Microsoft is keen to stamp out spam, but Mr Hamlin is concerned the
    | bill as it stands could prevent businesses from sending out e-mails to
    | people who had been their customers."
    |
    | "He says businesses ought to be able to send unsolicited e-mail to
    | people even if they are unsure if they have a pre-existing business
    | relationship with them."
    |
    | Hmmmm. "...the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing"?
    |
    | "...ought to be able to send unsolicited e-mail to people even if they
    | are unsure if they have a pre-existing business relationship with
    | them"?
    |
    | If it looks like Spam, it sounds like Spam and it tastes like Spam, it
    | probably is Spam. :-(
    |
    | Dazz

    Have you actually read the "New Zealand Government's Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill" ?

    --
    Dave
    http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
    http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
     
    David H. Lipman, Sep 2, 2005
    #10
  11. Jim Watt

    Management Guest

    Dazz Quoted:
    Perhaps we should let Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group
    head, Ryan Hamlin, tell us
    ..
    <SNIP>
    > "He says businesses ought to be able to send unsolicited e-mail to
    > people even if they are unsure if they have a pre-existing business
    > relationship with them."
    >


    As Dazz Says, "Perhaps we should let Microsoft's Technology Care and
    Safety Group head, Ryan Hamlin, tell us." And here goes Mr Hamlin:

    "So let's go into the definition, though, of spam. And like I said,
    there's no real universal definition. Spam has been described -- and
    this is one that's fairly common -- unsolicited commercial e-mail,
    unsolicited meaning I didn't subscribe to get this, it's commercial,
    it's usually trying to sell you something, and that's the definition
    that's pretty common and you see that quite a bit.

    Then people came around and said, you know, it's actually more than
    that though; it's bulk. It's not just one or two mails, it's when,
    man, millions of mail are sent out, so let's standardize on
    unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail; that's a good definition."

    "There are two others. It's unwanted e-mail. This is a definition --
    and I actually do like this one because this really takes the
    perspective of a consumer and it says, you know what, it's just
    anything that shows up in my inbox I don't want. That's really the
    definition that we're really looking for."

    Silicon Valley Speaker Series
    Remarks by Ryan Hamlin, general manager of the Anti-Spam Technology
    & Strategy Group
    Microsoft's Anti-Spam Initiative
    Thursday, May 29, 2003

    You can read the whole caboodle at:
    http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/events/svspeaker/05-29spam.mspx

    So what, precisely, does Microsoft want? Personally, I'm not waiting
    around for Mr Gates to solve this or any other problem. Let him go
    after the spammers if he wants but it's a bit like rats - there's
    more of them than there are people!


    Charlie.


    --
    Broadcasting to the environs
    www.radiowymsey.org
     
    Management, Sep 2, 2005
    #11
  12. Jim Watt

    Winged Guest

    David H. Lipman wrote:

    > Have you actually read the "New Zealand Government's Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill" ?
    >

    No I had asked for a link to bill but never found it. Do you have an
    online link to the bill? I have been looking for the actual wording to
    read.

    Winged
     
    Winged, Sep 2, 2005
    #12
  13. David H. Lipman, Sep 2, 2005
    #13
  14. Jim Watt

    Dazz Guest

    On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:26:37 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
    <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

    <snipped>

    >Have you actually read the "New Zealand Government's Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill" ?


    No, although I have been looking for it.

    A discussion paper can be found at
    http://www.med.govt.nz/pbt/infotech/spam/discussion/index.html.

    Regardless of whether or not I have read it, it doesn't lessen the
    comments made by the head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety
    Group, Ryan Hamlin, particularly "the amazing vehicle of e-mail
    marketing" or "... ought to be able to send unsolicited e-mail to
    people even if they are unsure if they have a pre-existing business
    relationship with them."

    The important question is: Why would Microsoft care if this bill is
    passed in New Zealand or not?

    It was obviously important enough for Ryan Hamlin to fly to New
    Zealand to try to convince the New Zealand Government to change their
    minds.

    Well they wouldn't ... unless of course, they could somehow profit
    from it.

    I wonder how much money Microsoft's "new technology"
    (http://www.newstarget.com/001072.html) is going to cost the user?

    Here's some more interesting links:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3201084a28,00.html
    http://www.csoonline.com.au/index.php?id=1740743833&eid=-302
    http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/NL/55830D335ED18BBBCC256FB5002EA516
    http://www.egov.vic.gov.au/International/AsiathePacific/NewZealand/newzeal.htm#spam

    Dazz
     
    Dazz, Sep 3, 2005
    #14
  15. Jim Watt

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 13:55:16 +1000, Dazz <> wrote:

    >Regardless of whether or not I have read it, it doesn't lessen the
    >comments made by the head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety
    >Group, Ryan Hamlin, particularly "the amazing vehicle of e-mail
    >marketing" or "... ought to be able to send unsolicited e-mail to
    >people even if they are unsure if they have a pre-existing business
    >relationship with them."


    Firstly there is the question of what he actually said, rather than
    what he is reported as having said.

    Secondly, I do not object to receiving unsolicited commercial
    emails at my business email address providing they are genuine
    companies offering real products and services. When I publish
    an email address to contact the company its fair enough and
    part of doing business. There is an imolied invitation to use
    that address by it being published.

    What needs to stop is the abuse of email by spammers, rather
    than legitimate company use, if one took away the 419, biggerdick
    visit our pornsite etc junklmail life would be quite quite bearable.

    I would not object to getting the occasional message from a
    Linux vendor, as Redhat did offering me their packages.
    Indeed hearing about new products and services is positive
    and its better than getting stuff in the post as less trees die
    in the process and the virtual wastebin feeds no tip.

    The link you want for the actual bill is

    http://www.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpprint/docs/bills/20052811.txt
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Sep 3, 2005
    #15
  16. Jim Watt

    Dazz Guest

    On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 11:04:18 +0200, Jim Watt <_way>
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 13:55:16 +1000, Dazz <> wrote:
    >
    >>Regardless of whether or not I have read it, it doesn't lessen the
    >>comments made by the head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety
    >>Group, Ryan Hamlin, particularly "the amazing vehicle of e-mail
    >>marketing" or "... ought to be able to send unsolicited e-mail to
    >>people even if they are unsure if they have a pre-existing business
    >>relationship with them."

    >
    >Firstly there is the question of what he actually said, rather than
    >what he is reported as having said.


    Well, neither you or I were there, so we can only go on what was
    quoted.

    However, from numerous other articles that I have read, including
    articles from Microsoft's own website, Hamlin's comments tie in with
    other comments he has made in the past - particularly in relation to
    spam and "opting out" as opposed to "opting in".

    >Secondly, I do not object to receiving unsolicited commercial
    >emails at my business email address providing they are genuine
    >companies offering real products and services. When I publish
    >an email address to contact the company its fair enough and
    >part of doing business. There is an imolied invitation to use
    >that address by it being published.


    And that is what this bill actually caters for - opting in as opposed
    to opting out which is what Microsoft want everyone to do. The
    proposed NZ Bill caters for that.

    If you download a trial or ful version of software, in quite a number
    of cases you end up providing an email address. Most reputable sites
    give you the option of being unable to untick a box in reference to
    them sending you emails with their latest product information.

    In my opinion, that's how it should work.

    >What needs to stop is the abuse of email by spammers, rather
    >than legitimate company use, if one took away the 419, biggerdick
    >visit our pornsite etc junklmail life would be quite quite bearable.


    Agreed.

    However, just as I don't want to read an email about improving my sex
    life, I also don't want emails containing propaganda about Microsoft's
    latest version of Office or a bloated Operating System.

    I don't know why Microsoft believe that they have the right to dictate
    to me (or a democratically elected Government for that matter) about
    what *they* think is best for me.

    I suspect Billy boy wouldn't be too impressed if I rang him up at home
    telling him how wonderfully fantastic "brand X" is. Likewise,
    Microsoft and any other commercial company shouldn't have the right to
    fill my inbox with their propaganda, unless I specifically sign up for
    it.

    I suspect that Microsoft have their own reasons for trying to enforce
    their ideas on me and the rest of the world - and that comes down to
    $$$$.

    >I would not object to getting the occasional message from a
    >Linux vendor, as Redhat did offering me their packages.
    >Indeed hearing about new products and services is positive
    >and its better than getting stuff in the post as less trees die
    >in the process and the virtual wastebin feeds no tip.
    >
    >The link you want for the actual bill is
    >
    >http://www.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpprint/docs/bills/20052811.txt


    Many thanks - I've been looking for that. :)

    Dazz
     
    Dazz, Sep 3, 2005
    #16
  17. Jim Watt

    Imhotep Guest

    Dazz wrote:
    <snip>
    > Hmmmm. "...the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing"?
    >
    > "...ought to be able to send unsolicited e-mail to people even if they
    > are unsure if they have a pre-existing business relationship with
    > them"?
    >
    > If it looks like Spam, it sounds like Spam and it tastes like Spam, it
    > probably is Spam. :-(
    >
    > Dazz


    ....exactly my point.

    Imhotep
     
    Imhotep, Sep 3, 2005
    #17
  18. Jim Watt

    Imhotep Guest

    Dazz wrote:
    <snip>
    > Well they wouldn't ... unless of course, they could somehow profit
    > from it.
    >


    Exactly. Microsoft will only be an advocate of something if that something
    is aligned with their business strategy...

    When investigating something, always look at the motives. It will always
    reveal the truth.

    So, I challenge anyone to come up with a reasonable explanation on what you
    think Microsoft's motives are (if you do not believe me when I say they are
    benefiting from spammers)

    Im

    > I wonder how much money Microsoft's "new technology"
    > (http://www.newstarget.com/001072.html) is going to cost the user?
    >
    > Here's some more interesting links:
    >
    > http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3201084a28,00.html
    > http://www.csoonline.com.au/index.php?id=1740743833&eid=-302
    > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/NL/55830D335ED18BBBCC256FB5002EA516
    >

    http://www.egov.vic.gov.au/International/AsiathePacific/NewZealand/newzeal.htm#spam
    >
    > Dazz
     
    Imhotep, Sep 3, 2005
    #18
  19. Jim Watt

    Imhotep Guest

    Jim Watt wrote:

    > On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 13:55:16 +1000, Dazz <> wrote:
    >
    >>Regardless of whether or not I have read it, it doesn't lessen the
    >>comments made by the head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety
    >>Group, Ryan Hamlin, particularly "the amazing vehicle of e-mail
    >>marketing" or "... ought to be able to send unsolicited e-mail to
    >>people even if they are unsure if they have a pre-existing business
    >>relationship with them."

    >
    > Firstly there is the question of what he actually said, rather than
    > what he is reported as having said.
    >
    > Secondly, I do not object to receiving unsolicited commercial
    > emails at my business email address providing they are genuine
    > companies offering real products and services. When I publish
    > an email address to contact the company its fair enough and
    > part of doing business. There is an imolied invitation to use
    > that address by it being published.


    Jim, you might not mind getting "clean" spam but, there are many people like
    me that do not want ANY spam ("clean" or otherwise)...

    > What needs to stop is the abuse of email by spammers, rather
    > than legitimate company use, if one took away the 419, biggerdick
    > visit our pornsite etc junklmail life would be quite quite bearable.


    Yes, "dirty" spam is also unwanted.

    > I would not object to getting the occasional message from a
    > Linux vendor, as Redhat did offering me their packages.
    > Indeed hearing about new products and services is positive
    > and its better than getting stuff in the post as less trees die
    > in the process and the virtual wastebin feeds no tip.


    Again, maybe you do not mind "clean" spam, but I do not. I do not care if it
    is Red Hat. For me spam is spam. I do not want any.

    > The link you want for the actual bill is
    >
    > http://www.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpprint/docs/bills/20052811.txt
    > --
    > Jim Watt
    > http://www.gibnet.com



    Again, the NZ bill makes sense. It gives the power to the recipient not the
    company. It will work for people like you who do not mind "clean" spam as
    you can sign up for it. It will work for people like me who do not want any
    spam ("clean" or otherwise)

    Im
     
    Imhotep, Sep 3, 2005
    #19
  20. Jim Watt

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 16:39:23 -0400, Imhotep <>
    wrote:

    >Jim, you might not mind getting "clean" spam but, there are many people like
    >me that do not want ANY spam ("clean" or otherwise)...


    But laws have a wide application, and are not just for the few.

    If were were limited to only sending messages to people we had
    received one from the process could never start. You ignore
    my point that companies invited email by publishing their addresses
    indeed I publish mine on the Internet and as the whois contact
    for domains.

    Thats why your pathetic attempts to harass me by malevolently
    posting my email address here have no effect.

    Laws that are unworkable or against peoples interests are bad
    laws.

    its also a pity you cannot address the topic, rather than just
    attacking me for presenting views.
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Sep 3, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Curious George

    Getting canned for brining forth obvious security breaches

    Curious George, Feb 1, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    511
    Curious George
    Feb 1, 2005
  2. Curious George

    getting canned for finding security breaches

    Curious George, Feb 1, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    531
    Curious George
    Feb 4, 2005
  3. C A Preston

    Spam-Spam and more Spam

    C A Preston, Apr 12, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    620
    Hywel
    Apr 12, 2004
  4. Hitman of Las Vegas

    Indy sequel canned -sad day for us all...

    Hitman of Las Vegas, Feb 17, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    70
    Views:
    1,615
    Eric R.
    Feb 27, 2004
  5. Clwddncr
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    712
    Dave - Dave.net.nz
    Feb 7, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page