[isp-marketing] RE: just FYI, breaking anti-spam law news

["MG" <viking@...>]

That's exactly the problem. How many spammers are already using leased or
hijacked servers outside US or European jurisdiction? Still, the profits (as
small or big they actually are) from spamming still end up in the companies
whose products are spamvertised, or who have sold the address lists to the
spammers. As long as this isn't covered by these new laws, I doubt that
anything will ever change. But then, who's is willing to go against those
companies? Dick Cheney? 

Markus





-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Sullivan [mailto:kevin@...] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 7:05 PM
To: isp-marketing@isp-marketing.com
Subject: [isp-marketing] RE: just FYI, breaking anti-spam law news


If you ever figure out who sent the mail in the first place. Who's going to
spend the time and money necessary to track the buggers down? And I imagine
most of them will just purchase servers out of U.S jurisdiction, anyway.
Can't fine someone in Mexico!

Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Gee" <J.G@...>
To: <isp-marketing@isp-marketing.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 3:22 PM
Subject: [isp-marketing] RE: just FYI, breaking anti-spam law news


> Kevin,
>
> SPAM, like beauty or crime, is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> If someone steals your car, you may feel violated
> and suffer financial loss.  To the guy who stole the
> car, he was just "making a living."
>
> Gentlemen prefer blondes.
>
> I could go on but I hope you get my drift.
>
> It is just this argument that has produced the need
> for laws regulating SPAM, SPAM, SPAM.
>
> You may not like it, but many of us do.
>
> The courts won't be tied up long because
> after a few spammers get nailed for big
> judgements and fines, the balance of the
> spamming community will get the message
> that the jig is up.   (-:
>
> Jay Gee
>
>
>
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:10:46 -0800, Kevin Sullivan wrote:
>
> >I radically dislike the idea. You idea of spam is different from my 
> >idea
of
> >spam, and the fines that they are able to impose are so hefty it's
insane.
> >Sounds like something else to tie the courts up with, as if they 
> >weren't busy enough already.. Kevin
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Alex Goldman" <agoldman@...>
> >To: <isp-marketing@isp-marketing.com>
> >Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 1:28 PM
> >Subject: [isp-marketing] RE: just FYI, breaking anti-spam law news
> >
> >
> >> Doesn't look like good news. . . and tacked on to the end is a 
> >> subsidy
to
> >TV
> >> broadcasters to help them produce captions for deaf people, 
> >> requested
by
> >the
> >> TV trade group, the NTIA.
> >>
> >> It allows ISPs to sue "in any district court of the United States 
> >> with jurisdiction over the defendant" for up to $1 million, and 
> >> you're not guaranteed getting back attorneys' fees.
> >>
> >>
> >> Interesting . . . sender must provide a valid postal address. . .
> >>
> >>
> >> Seems that most actual spam violations will be prosecuted by the 
> >> FTC
under
> >> fraud statutes already on the books.
> >>
> >>
> >> It seems that the best part of the law is this: that it gives 
> >> control
to
> >the
> >> FTC, not the FCC.
> >>
> >> The worst part is this: yes, they're really going to make a 
> >> do-not-spam last. No, really.  They are.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Guy Decatrel [mailto:gdecatrel@...]
> >> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 6:45 PM
> >> To: isp-marketing@isp-marketing.com
> >> Subject: [isp-marketing] RE: just FYI, breaking anti-spam law news
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> S'about time!
> >>
>
>
>
>