From: Eric Murray <ericm@lne.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 09:08:47 +0800
To: lwp@conch.aa.msen.com (Lou Poppler)
Subject: spam suckers (was Re: Chancellor Group....)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.92.960712102908.25048B-100000@conch.aa.msen.com>
Message-ID: <199607121652.JAA28494@slack.lne.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Lou Poppler writes:
> 
> Note that the referenced web server is in another domain owned by this
> same Bob Williams.  Perhaps his misleading unsolicited investment advice
> is part of a package deal provided to companies who buy his web service.


He's been flogging the same shit for a while- I've received three or four
of these spams at another address that I use to make Usenet posts.

That address is an account at a large workstation company that I
consult for.  I've been getting a lot of spam there.
I suggested on an internal mailing list that the amount of spam
that various employees there are getting isn't insignificant and
that perhaps they should sue some of the spammers for wasting
the company's resources and employee time without permission.

I suggest that the "anti-junk-fax" law might be extended to cover
spam mail.  However I don't trust net-clueless legislators to
be able to make even a simple law without fucking it up and
restricting civil liberties.  However, I heard from a friend
that they're doing just that, extending the junk fax law
to cover junk email.  Something like a $500 fine for
each junk email.  Does anyone know more?

Would mailing-list operators be liable under this law when
someone forges a subscription message from "clinton@whitehouse.gov"?


-- 
Eric Murray  ericm@lne.com  ericm@motorcycle.com  http://www.lne.com/ericm
PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03  92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF