  newview Ex .. Ex .. Exactly Premium join:2001-10-01 Parsonsburg, MD
| Forbes: Congress Makes No Progress On Spam
quote: "There's an old argument from those who oppose gun control that if you make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns. Something similar applies here. If you ban forged e-mail addresses, only criminals will forge their e-mail addresses."
"The bill also bans hijacking someone else's computer for the purpose of sending spam, but computer intrusion for any reason is generally illegal, so don't expect that provision to make much of a difference."
"Another ridiculous inclusion is a requirement that spam e-mails contain the sender's postal mail address. Spammers are not going to tell you the location of their homes or offices for fear that some unhappy recipient may pay them an unpleasant visit."
"Finally, the last insultingly bad provision on which Congress has wasted its time--and ours--with this bill, and in fact the entire effort, is the requirement that senders give receivers a means to "opt out" of their lists--that is, tell them you don't want to hear from them ever again. Remember now that this law applies only to senders who are based in the U.S., and that telling the difference between spammers foreign and domestic is no easy task."
"Bush would do e-mail users everywhere a big favor by vetoing this so-called "anti-spam" bill when it reaches his desk. Veto it, and send it back with a handwritten note saying, "Legislating badly is worse than not legislating at all." "
»www.forbes.com/home_asia/2003/11···ech.html
-- The Rules of Spam | Maryland's New Anti-Spam Law Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? |