and a completely moot point since congres does not run the internet, ever heard of a concept call "the world" ? It basically describes that part that does also include the majority of internet users who are not bound by any US law, despite thoughts of different ideas by some in the USA.
Finally I agree that this is a lame debate that has been discussed so often that is has grown a beard. abel ----- Original Message ----- From: "POWERHOUSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "William X Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "opensrs discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 12:27 PM Subject: Re: Re[5]: Spamming > (5) INCLUSION OF IDENTIFIER, OPT-OUT, AND PHYSICAL ADDRESS IN UNSOLICITED > COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL- It shall be unlawful for any person to initiate > the transmission of any unsolicited commercial electronic mail message to a > protected computer unless the message provides, in a manner that is clear > and conspicuous to the recipient-- > (A) identification that the message is an advertisement or solicitation; > (B) notice of the opportunity under paragraph (3) to decline to receive > further unsolicited commercial electronic mail messages from the sender; and > (C) a valid physical postal address of the sender. > > > That is taken directly from the Congress Library. > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:3:./temp/~c107L9IaDZ:e15271: > > > > > Richard Jones > http://register.firstratehosting.com/cgi-bin/reg_system.cgi > http://www.firstratehosting.com > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William X Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "POWERHOUSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 1:53 PM > Subject: Re[5]: Spamming > > > > > > http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/spam.htm > > > > > > > > Wednesday, Wednesday, January 30, 2002, 11:51:46 AM, William X Walsh > wrote: > > > > > > > I'm telling you, for a fact, it is not a law. > > > > > He was mistaken. The congress passed no laws defining spam. There is > > > no reason for them to, since spam is not illegal. They have passed no > > > laws regulating spam at all. > > > > > This is an urban legend. > > > > > Laws are not changed often by the way, once they are passed. Passing > > > laws and changes to laws takes a lot of time and resources, they start > > > in committee, and go out from there. > > > > > I'm not one of the antispammers, but I do know for a fact that this > > > often quoted "law" doesn't exist. > > > > > The often quoted method of quoting it is this: > > > Bill.1618 Title III by the 105th US Congress, which states that mail > cannot > > > be considered spam if it contains the following information. > > > > > Bills NEVER have that kind of numbering, and a Bill is not a law. > > > Title 3 has nothing to do with spam, nothing to do with the internet, > > > nothing even to do with business. The 105th Congress never passed any > > > spam legislation. Many bills did get submitted, including one that > > > spammers tried to get passed, but none were ever PASSED, much less > > > signed into law. > > > > > The 105th Congress was in place from 1997-1998, and it had many spam > > > bills presented, but none of them got enacted as law. > > > > > You can choose to believe otherwise, but be aware many spam marketing > > > companies and spam software companies tell people this false law to > > > convince them that they should do spam, and that they can't get in > > > trouble over it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- > > > > > >
