At Fri Dec 13 17:04:17 2002, Harold Hallikainen wrote:
>
> Last week I posted a section of California law that permits ISPs
> to sue spammers if the spammer has been notified that the ISP does not
> accept spam. The law makes mention of automatic notification by the
> receivning email server
At Fri Dec 13 18:46:52 2002, Steve Thomas wrote:
>
> | email systems. One responder on this list said he/she included something
> | in the HELO response on the SMTP server. Does anyone know of any standards
> | in this area as to what a legally enforcible "no spam" SMTP response would
>
>
> I Am
| email systems. One responder on this list said he/she included something
| in the HELO response on the SMTP server. Does anyone know of any standards
| in this area as to what a legally enforcible "no spam" SMTP response would
I Am Not A Lawyer
I don't really know about the enforceability of
ssage-
> From: Harold Hallikainen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 11:04 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] SMTP notification to spammers?
>
>
> Last week I posted a section of California law that permits ISPs
> to sue spammers
Last week I posted a section of California law that permits ISPs
to sue spammers if the spammer has been notified that the ISP does not
accept spam. The law makes mention of automatic notification by the
receivning email server, indiciating that notification would be
sufficient. However, th
