The SPAM issue is relevant to Opensrs and resellers.
Hi William, What are you doing up this early? and if people don't comply to your suggestions re the porn links? the "authorities" will have to act. ie. the government. shut them down, charge them fines, whatever. this isn't the gov't dictating how email should be used. it's dictating how it can't be used. and actually, the gov't isn't an it, it's us in a skewed kind of way. the last 10 years of gov't bashing is getting very stale. i'll take the civic process over feudalism any day. And yes, it does suck. Shut down unsolicicited spam/fax and implement opt-in or end up with 500,000 emails a day in your in box. Yes, 500,000 a day. Sounds like a SPAM message, eh. (Canadian giveaway.) being clearly opposed to SPAM does not make one an extremist at all. 7,000 unwanted emails a day is extreme. 500,000 unwanted emails a day is very extreme. Shutting down spammers is moderating the extreme SPAM paradigm we are entering. Swerve > From: William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 01:45:03 -0800 > To: Swerve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re[2]: Spamming > > Tuesday, Tuesday, January 29, 2002, 7:42:25 PM, Swerve wrote: > >> SPAM should be illegal. >> FAX SPAM should be illegal. > >> Opt-in emailing with activation that requires email confirmation from the >> person signing up should be required for all companies and people creating >> and using mailing lists. > > No thanks, I don't want the government, any government, dictating how > email should be used. As much as I agree with your statement that > companies should use activation required subscription mechanisms, I > would oppose any legislation that tries to legislate the issue of > email like that. > > What I do support is adding some postal mail like restrictions on > email, and I would support laws to accomplish this: > > 1) That "adult/pornographic" emails/ads are NEVER to be sent > unsolicited, and that a set of tags be developed that they must use to > identify the email, so that filtering can be done by families with > children, etc. Establish strict consequences for violations, just > like in the postal world (in the postal world, you can never send a > sexually explicit advertisement unsolicited, and all such mailings > must be identified as such before the recipient is exposed to the > material, either on the outer envelope or on an inside envelope to > protect their privacy). > > 2) Mandatory list removal, same as in the real world for mailing > lists, and telemarketing call lists. > > 3) All advertisements must contain correct headers and correct contact > information and removal instructions. > > But for any of this to work, the vigilantes must stop their crusades. > > But like with any extremists, there is no negotiating with them, they > don't recognize that they can accomplish a lot more through > compromise, then by their all or nothing approach. It's too bad too, > since it would stand in the way of any real reform of the issue. > > But, as Chuck will probably come along now and say, I guess none of > this is ontopic. Oh well :) > > -- > Best regards, > William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- > > "There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of > the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer > interprets the truth." > -- Jean Giradoux > >
