"Not so fast"...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 21:18:13 -0800, Aviram Jenik wrote:
> Tal Kaplan, from pczlaw, was kind enough to give me a detailed
> explanation(*)
> about this matter.
>
> First, to answer both Dotan and Boaz, it should be a relatively simple
> process
> to get 1,000 NIS for every inco
Omer Zak wrote:
>From the contents of a relatively unfiltered mailbox (which fortunately
is not widely advertised and I check it only once each few weeks),
Leiberman indeed uses very much the political exemption.
I got in that mailbox a lot of spam from:
* Israel Beitanu (Leiberman's party) - se
b...@rymland.com wrote:
You may want to start with this:
http://www.moital.gov.il/NR/exeres/1A0A7AB5-68D4-4739-801D-44390FEE7A39.htm
> > That's exactly the reason why I haven't done it myself as well. The
> > necessity to appear in court
> > which means taking a day off or something.
> >
> > A f
b...@rymland.com wrote:
That's exactly the reason why I haven't done it myself as well. The
necessity to appear in court
which means taking a day off or something.
You can add that cost to the claim.
A few complimentary questions:
1) Have anyone heard of successful small claims suits so far
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Well, I find that hard to believe. You will eventually have to prove
that you received the SPAM from them. and that you did not alter it in
any way.
The law is very specific that having your name appearing on the spam as
the one being advertised is sufficient eviden
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 11:24:34AM +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
The law is very specific that having your name appearing on the spam as
the one being advertised is sufficient evidence that you are the
presumed spammer. I imagine that, should the spammer want to claim they
are not, the burden
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 11:24:34AM +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
The law is very specific that having your name appearing on the spam
as the one being advertised is sufficient evidence that you are the
presumed spammer. I imagine that, should the spammer want to cl
Quoting Shlomi Fish, from the post of Sat, 07 Feb:
> On Friday 06 February 2009 23:42:54 Ira Abramov wrote:
> > 23:40:21 up 512 days, 9:49, 2 users, load average: 0.89, 0.83, 1.11
>
> That's a nice uptime. However, weren't there any newer kernels released since
> with important security updat
Ira Abramov wrote:
I am hoping Lenny becomes stable soon, though it could have been cool to
have a 550 day uptime :-)
Due date is February 14. In 5 days.
Shachar
___
Linux-il mailing list
Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il
http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mail
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009, Shachar Shemesh wrote about "Re: OFFTOPIC: Re: Hebrew
spam: what to do about it?":
> Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> >
> >Well, I find that hard to believe. You will eventually have to prove
> >that you received the SPAM from them. and that you did not alter it in
> >any way.
Nadav Har'El wrote:
What do you do in such a case?
Sue.
The law specifically says that the person in charge of marketing must
make a personal effort to make sure that the company is spam free, or
face PERSONAL consequences.
In any case, like I said before, it's up to the spammer to prove t
Quoting sara fink, from the post of Sat, 07 Feb:
> HI Ira
>
> Who is the party? What subjects you raised with them? What distro you are
> interested to install and what laws you intend to propose them?
Hi, sorry for the delay in replies, it's ben a crazy time these last few
weeks :-)
As some of
On Sunday 08 February 2009 23:42:54 b...@rymland.com wrote:
> > The only down side is that in small claims you have to file and appear
> > yourself, without a lawyer. This is basically the reason I haven't done
>
> it
>
> > yet.
> That's exactly the reason why I haven't done it myself as well. The
According to a couple of recent Hebrew spams that I got, there's a loophole
allowing ONE spam message per spammer per email address. They say that the
law allows sending one message if it is an offer for registration to a
publicity list (they can't send you more if you do not respond), so
basically
Amit Aronovitch wrote:
According to a couple of recent Hebrew spams that I got, there's a
loophole allowing ONE spam message per spammer per email address. They
say that the law allows sending one message if it is an offer for
registration to a publicity list (they can't send you more if you do
Quoting Aviram Jenik, from the post of Mon, 09 Feb:
> On Sunday 08 February 2009 23:42:54 b...@rymland.com wrote:
> > > The only down side is that in small claims you have to file and appear
> > > yourself, without a lawyer. This is basically the reason I haven't done
>
> Agreed. The only reason I
I have yet to take up Arik Baratz on his generous offer to help me
setup my own Asterisk server, but in the meantime I learne a couple of
things:
1. Amazon EC2 might contain surprises in the bill. I'm saying this
VERY cautiously based on one test server we had for a few days with
lots of disk spac
Attention Shay O'Hayon and anyone else using UCEPROTECT's RBL: about a
quarter or a third of Israel's users, those using dialups or mail
servers on the Bezeqint network are blocked from mailing you.
from their site:
What means listed at UCEPROTECT-Level 3?
GAME OVER. We and our users have seen
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 07:41:38AM +0200, Ira Abramov wrote:
As much as I hate spam, I think this RBL is a tiny bit out of sync with
the universal definition of "sane".
A mailing list I am on lost most of its membership because they have
an anti-SPAM device called a baraccuda who used a metric
19 matches
Mail list logo
