phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to desreversti
Re: I for one...
In this case... I can't agree more. I am trying to find more details on what grounds the spammer sued... or if the court/judge was 'required' to rule in the spammer's favor SOLELY because SpamHaus didn't show up. Something tells me this spammer doesn't have a leg to stand on. |
|
peter_m
Premium
join:2005-07-13
Canada, QC | I don't understand. Isn't spam illegal in the US as well?!?! How can a spammer sue a company that prevents the spammer from conducting an illegal activity?? |
|
newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
| said by peter_m  :I don't understand. Isn't spam illegal in the US as well?!?!
Unfortunately not . . . they don't call it the (You) Can-Spam Act for nothing.
--
Ö¿Ö
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? |
|
phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| reply to peter_m
Illegal? Depends on how you read the CAN-SPAM Act. In many ways, CAN-SPAM set guidelines on what companies must to do/not do when sending emails... in short, they regulated spam and thus by extension, 'legalized' it. So long as you comply with CAN-SPAM, you can send 'spam' all day long.
If you read enough stories here on BBR, you will find we have some seriously ignorant politicians trying to write laws that related to technology... and they seem to fail most of the time. The CAN-SPAM is just one example of the complete failure of technology related legislation. |
|
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27 | Wait, is an ACT really a law?
I support our British cousins fighting the good fight (through all that fog and bangers!).
A pint for ye! |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| When it is the name of a bill presented to the U.S. President for signature, and when the U.S. President signs the bill, thus enacting the legislation, then: Yes.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to phantom6294
said by phantom6294 :In this case... I can't agree more. I am trying to find more details on what grounds the spammer sued... or if the court/judge was 'required' to rule in the spammer's favor SOLELY because SpamHaus didn't show up. Something tells me this spammer doesn't have a leg to stand on. »news.com.com/Spam+fighter+hit+wi···009.html
quote:
Spamhaus didn't mount a defense in the case; the ruling was a default judgment in absence of counterarguments.
--
Am Heimcomputer sitz' ich hier, und programmier' die Zukunft mir |
|
