dslreports logo
 story category
Spam Officially Legal
Bush signs off on Can Spam Act

President Bush today signed the "Can Spam Act of 2003", giving the green light to 'legit' marketers to spam away, while providing stiff penalties to misleading spammers. Companies love it, anti-spam experts are essentially disgusted. Reuters reports on the Bush signing with somewhat more skepticism than earlier reports.

Numerous companies with on-line marketing relationships like Yahoo, E-bay, and Earthlink quickly issued press releases applauding the idea. Analysts like the Gartner group have been less enthusiastic, sending clients a note suggesting that "Disreputable spammers will find no need to comply with the legislation," - "Should spammers feel at risk, the spam e-mail will be sent through an offshore ISP, outside U.S. jurisdiction."

Organizations like Spamhaus have argued the marketing association backed legislation legalizes spam instead of banning it. The White House says the law "builds upon the Administration's efforts to empower consumers with choices in the technology field." You can find the White House's press release here, and about a million different opinions (surely you can find one you like) via google news.

Better yet, read the legislation yourself and form your own opinion.
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next

anon_5224
join:2001-10-23
united state

1 edit

1 recommendation

anon_5224

Member

they're asking for it now

alright everyone, you know what this means. add 'w's e-mail addy to anyplace you can, as well as anyone else who helped pass this law. see how they like it.

mailto:president@whitehouse.gov

TheMadSwede
Premium Member
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI

3 recommendations

TheMadSwede

Premium Member

Re: they're asking for it now

said by anon_5224:
alright everyone, you know what this means. add 'w's e-mail addy to anyplace you can, as well as anyone else who helped pass this law. see how they like it.

mailto:president@whitehouse.gov

Bush signs it, Bush gets insulted. Bush vetoes, everyone says, "Oh - I see. Bush supports spam". It was a lose lose situation.

So be inclusive in your blame and include the idiot legislators that drafted this and moved it through.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

1 edit

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: they're asking for it now

Yeah I'm certainly no Bush fan, but I think blame falls more toward both Democrats and Republicans in Congress who think that working closely with the Direct Marketers Association for four years on any anti-spam legislation was a good idea to begin with....

Bought.
Fishie
join:2003-01-14
Riverside, CA

Fishie to TheMadSwede

Member

to TheMadSwede
I agree. Presidents are usually just puppets for the party.
mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA

mglunt

Member

Re: they're asking for it now

...or Both in this case since the Bill passed the House and Senate by a combined 489-5.
Fishie
join:2003-01-14
Riverside, CA

Fishie to anon_5224

Member

to anon_5224
Yeah, and us tax payers pay people to sort through all of that spam for him. He probably doesn't even see any email.

toddbs98
join:2000-07-08
North Little Rock, AR

toddbs98 to anon_5224

Member

to anon_5224
Thanks for the great ideal just got 3 emails to an account that never got spam before forward them straight to president@whitehouse.gov. Of course now my inbox is filling up with auto responses from the White House.

tcp1
Premium Member
join:2000-04-17
Monument, CO

tcp1 to anon_5224

Premium Member

to anon_5224
That is the stupidest idea I have heard all day.

adding president@whitehouse.gov to spam lists will do nothing but make sure no legitimate concerns get heard from the president via e-mail -- as if that isn't already the case.

Do you really think GW pops open Outlook or Eudora and downloads everything coming to president@whitehouse.gov? I'm sure a few dumb l33t kiddos here do; and they've probably already gone and signed the address up for huge spam lists.

He doesn't read it, but his staffers do -- and compile a general summary of attitudes, issues, and objections. This is better than nothing.

I disagree with the legislation's weak stance -- however doing what you say will only make sure that "president@whitehouse.gov" is completely and utterly useless to Joe citizen.

anon_5224
join:2001-10-23
united state
Asus RT-AC66

anon_5224

Member

i thought it was a great idea, a little like that incident where that one spammer went on national tv and said how great spam was or whatever, then he got inundated shortly after that:D and i doubt ol' 'w listens to any of our legitimate concerns anyways, he has a whole cabinet to tell him what to do.
mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA

mglunt to anon_5224

Member

to anon_5224
You would be much better off emailing your local congressmen / senator since they are the ones who basically handcuffed the President no matter what he wanted to do. This bill was passing veto or not.

There are a lot of good provisions in this bill, and I'm sure that soon we'll all be signing up for a do not spam list.

woody7
Premium Member
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA

woody7 to anon_5224

Premium Member

to anon_5224
I'm Disgusted,Fu*k em all, let God sortem out....we should forward all our spam to them and let them really see what it's all about

ghostpainter
I Write for the Apocalypse
MVM
join:2002-05-25
Rancho Cucamonga, CA

ghostpainter to anon_5224

MVM

to anon_5224
said by anon_5224:
alright everyone, you know what this means. add 'w's e-mail addy to anyplace you can, as well as anyone else who helped pass this law. see how they like it.

mailto:president@whitehouse.gov

Does this mean that Gator doesn't have to change there name?????

nklb
Premium Member
join:2000-11-17
Ann Arbor, MI

nklb

Premium Member

Re: they're asking for it now

Gator DOESNT have to change their name. They voluntarily did that in an attempt to get away from the negative image that word now has because of their prior (and continuing) actions.

ghostpainter
I Write for the Apocalypse
MVM
join:2002-05-25
Rancho Cucamonga, CA

ghostpainter

MVM

Re: they're asking for it now

said by nklb:
Gator DOESNT have to change their name. They voluntarily did that in an attempt to get away from the negative image that word now has because of their prior (and continuing) actions.

A rhetorical question if you please, again, then they can be prosecuted, for continuing and doing the spam that they love to call educational creatitity....Or did we just witness a Nixon pardon???

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to anon_5224

Premium Member

to anon_5224
said by anon_5224:
alright everyone, you know what this means. add 'w's e-mail addy to anyplace you can, as well as anyone else who helped pass this law. see how they like it.

mailto:president@whitehouse.gov

Doesn't work. The Spammers automatically exclude all the .GOV addresses.

And if you actively forward the spam, that makes *you* the spammer, not the spammer!

Dreadwing6
Unleash The Giver2
Premium Member
join:2002-03-10
Da Bronx?

1 edit

Dreadwing6

Premium Member

Like they care

All jokes aside this is just telling spammers what they're doing is ok just don't abuse it,problem is they have been abusing it and now we get the cold shoulder
mrljcsi
join:2002-10-19
Saint Charles, MO

mrljcsi

Member

Re: Like they care

When are these Washington types gonna get the message??? NO SPAM in my e-mail box, and NO TELEMARKETERS calling me either. Where is our freedom of choice??????

Shrapnel64
Premium Member
join:2001-01-24
VA, USA

Shrapnel64

Premium Member

RE: Spam Officially Legal

It must be nice to be able to spam people inboxes with undoubtfully 400 messages that we won't even read. Now, if we could just spam the spammers and all the companies who issue the spam then they probably wouldn't like it...but lucky for them they have spam filters for their email boxes.

Grumpy4
Premium Member
join:2001-07-28
NW CT

Grumpy4

Premium Member

Re: RE: Spam Officially Legal

Bush is thinking with the "I'm a whore for lobby $ & favors" side of his brain, as opposed to what is the best choice for the people. Imagine the millions of dollars wasted each week on electricity and lost time and productivity due to spam. On top of that, a great deal of the spam isn't something I would find appropriate for children.

B52GUNR
KM 7D love and D5 Nirvana
MVM
join:2001-03-06
Suisun City, CA

B52GUNR

MVM

Guess who I'm NOT voting for.

I can't believe he signed this. Well, yes I can. You can show your digust by voting him out of office.
wcmi92
Mike
join:2003-01-01
Ashland, KY

wcmi92

Member

Re: Guess who I'm NOT voting for.

I've already decided not to vote for him again because of his participation in gutting the 1st Amendment (the so-called Campaign Finance "Reform" law).

When this law fails and fails MISERABLY, people will demand that they toughen it. The DMA is the biggest bunch of sleazebags this side of Alan Ralsky (a notorious spammer). Indeed, they are worse. They want Ralsky-scum out of the way so that so-called "legitimate" marketers who are members of the DMA have it all to themselves...

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

1 edit

Transmaster

Member

Re: Guess who I'm NOT voting for.

for crying out loud why are you blaming Bush for the Campaign fiance law it is called the Feingold/McCain
reform law.

As for Spam, pray tell what could they have passed that
would have done any good at all. Had he not signed it we would now have the spectacle of Dr. Dean foaming at the mouth beating his chest shouting "why didn't he sign it."

starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium Member
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX

starstuff to B52GUNR

Premium Member

to B52GUNR
said by B52GUNR:
I can't believe he signed this. Well, yes I can. You can show your digust by voting him out of office.

This and more to come is what we get for electing trash like Bush.

All he needs to do is sign a bill legalizing all 25 Million illegal aliens living in the US and we'll be all set.

bokamba
Premium Member
join:2002-04-05
Arlington, VA

bokamba

Premium Member

Re: Guess who I'm NOT voting for.

And how about the Democrats and Republicans in Congress who wrote and passed the bill? Are they under the President's mind control powers?

AthlGrond
Premium Member
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO

AthlGrond

Premium Member

Re: Guess who I'm NOT voting for.

Amazing!

How were you able to read the first poster's mind like that? Are you the president?

starreem
Premium Member
join:2000-12-22
Raleigh, NC

starreem to starstuff

Premium Member

to starstuff
said by starstuff:
This and more to come is what we get for electing trash like Bush.
And who is "we"? I seem to recall he was appointed by the supreme court...details...details...

trebzon
join:2001-09-03
Grandville, MI

trebzon

Member

Re: Guess who I'm NOT voting for.

said by starreem:
said by starstuff:
This and more to come is what we get for electing trash like Bush.
And who is "we"? I seem to recall he was appointed by the supreme court...details...details...

Maybe it is time you reread the law. Representative Democracy and Electoral College and the rule of law. Hes the President. Deal with it. Too bad we don't have the inventor of the internet in office. Come on.

AthlGrond
Premium Member
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO

AthlGrond

Premium Member

Re: Guess who I'm NOT voting for.

Now now, we all know Gore only paid for the making of the internet (while he was still in college no less!), he didn't invent it.
ajkrueger
join:2000-12-11
Detroit, MI

ajkrueger to starstuff

Member

to starstuff
WHO elected Bush?

The ONLY way to stop SPAM is to fine / imprison the sellers of the products offered in the SPAM! This is so simple, anyone who really wanted to stop SPAM could. The sellers are not invisible - they have bank accounts, telephones, faxes... Duh! If the people HIRING the SPAMMERS were worried about their asses, the SPAMMERS would be out of business.

And BUSH - he is preparing Christmas gifts for his pal, Osama - without whom, GWB's presidency would be completely in the crapper!

TweakingHard
Premium Member
join:2003-07-16
Chicago, IL

TweakingHard

Premium Member

Re: Guess who I'm NOT voting for.

said by ajkrueger:
WHO elected Bush?

The ONLY way to stop SPAM is to fine / imprison the sellers of the products offered in the SPAM! This is so simple, anyone who really wanted to stop SPAM could. The sellers are not invisible - they have bank accounts, telephones, faxes... Duh! If the people HIRING the SPAMMERS were worried about their asses, the SPAMMERS would be out of business.

And BUSH - he is preparing Christmas gifts for his pal, Osama - without whom, GWB's presidency would be completely in the crapper!

WELL FRICKEN SAID!

AkumalDave
Life's A Beach
Premium Member
join:2001-04-20
Minneapolis, MN

AkumalDave to B52GUNR

Premium Member

to B52GUNR
said by B52GUNR:
I can't believe he signed this.
I can't believe he knows HOW to sign his name...but that's beside the point.

This is classic. Name something for the opposite of what it does, so you can claim you voted for (or signed) it and the uninformed masses will think you did a GOOD thing. ARRRGGGHHH!

Batten down the hatches - here comes the spam !

Dave
MKR
join:2001-08-27
Winder, GA

MKR

Member

Re: Guess who I'm NOT voting for.

He has a stamp. =P

AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium Member
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX

AmeritecTech to B52GUNR

Premium Member

to B52GUNR
said by B52GUNR:
I can't believe he signed this. Well, yes I can. You can show your digust by voting him out of office.

Better vote out your Senators too. They didn't vote against it. In fact, not a single Senator voted against it.
mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA

mglunt to B52GUNR

Member

to B52GUNR
Wow, someone needs to go back to school and realize that Presidential Vetoes can be overturned with a 2/3rds vote.

But don't let the facts get involved in your partisan rants.

AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium Member
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX

AmeritecTech

Premium Member

Re: Guess who I'm NOT voting for.

said by mglunt:
Wow, someone needs to go back to school and realize that Presidential Vetoes can be overturned with a 2/3rds vote.

But don't let the facts get involved in your partisan rants.

Indeed, and the bill passed the Senate by 97% and the House by 90%.

Glaice
Brutal Video Vault
Premium Member
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY

Glaice to B52GUNR

Premium Member

to B52GUNR
I'll vote for Dean
mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA

mglunt

Member

Re: Guess who I'm NOT voting for.

said by Glaice:
I'll vote for Dean

I won't. I like my tax cut. I also like a president who doesn't change positions on issues as often as underwear.
masrotaj
join:2003-07-09
Fort Lauderdale, FL

masrotaj to B52GUNR

Member

to B52GUNR
Guess who you would never vote for under any circumstance
Duh!!!!!
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH

wentlanc to B52GUNR

Member

to B52GUNR
You people really need to get over your "GW screwed us" bullcrap. You are only showing your ignorance of the processes that our government uses to create laws. As said before, 97% in the Senate, and 90% in the house agreed to the idea before it was even handed to Bush to sign.

puritan

AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium Member
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX

AmeritecTech

Premium Member

Re: Guess who I'm NOT voting for.

said by wentlanc:
You people really need to get over your "GW screwed us" bullcrap. You are only showing your ignorance of the processes that our government uses to create laws. As said before, 97% in the Senate, and 90% in the house agreed to the idea before it was even handed to Bush to sign.
Indeed. And most of the rest was people who abstained from the vote. There wasn't a single vote against it in the Senate (3 abstained, 97 voted Yes) and there were only 5 votes against it in the House (which is a mere 1.15%) and a whopping 37 abstained.

0% of your Senators voted to stop this law and 1.15% of your House Representatives voted to stop it. Folks, does your party work for you, or for the DMA?

Plasticman
Will Work For Bandwidth
Premium Member
join:2002-09-06
Johnston, RI

Plasticman

Premium Member

Now this sucks

Now this will just make the spam worse. Because you know that once we opt out of something that we did not opt in for in the first place. They will pass the email on or start to use those shady spammers that are outside of the reach of the law to continue their crappy sleezy business practices

Plasticman
dardin
join:2002-11-19
Tucson, AZ

dardin

Member

Is there anything Bush can't f*ck up?

Just another reasons why Bush is out of control and needs to be replaced. He cares not for the citizens of this country only the corporations that fill his pockets.



Guess its time to rewrite my spam assassin to forward the spam to my congressman with the note "thanks for allowing the can spam bill to pass".

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

starreem
Premium Member
join:2000-12-22
Raleigh, NC

starreem

Premium Member

A Very Sad Day Indeed.

Too bad, the flood gates are now open. Wonder what effect this will have on those two jerks from NC arrested the other day for violating Virgina spam laws?
Elfstone
join:2001-11-14
Bayonne, NJ

Elfstone

Member

As if..

As if any of the other politicians wouldn't have signed the bill? It's easy to blame Bush for signing it, but the vast majority of politicians know very little about technology --only about the cash that comes in from the major companies this bill helps.

scavio
Premium Member
join:2001-07-14
Melmac

1 edit

scavio

Premium Member

What is this... Physical address necessary?

Maybe I need clarification on this portion of the act:
quote:

(5) INCLUSION OF IDENTIFIER, OPT-OUT, AND PHYSICAL ADDRESS IN COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL- (A) It is unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission of any commercial electronic mail message to a protected computer unless the message provides--

(i) clear and conspicuous identification that the message is an advertisement or solicitation;

(ii) clear and conspicuous notice of the opportunity under paragraph (3) to decline to receive further commercial electronic mail messages from the sender; and

(iii) a valid physical postal address of the sender.

So any commercial email without a valid physical address is illegal?

Another thing I am confused about is the contant use the the term "protected computer." As far as I can tell, a protected computer is pretty limited in scope and does not include most business computers or home computers.

•••

Tomek
Premium Member
join:2002-01-30
Valley Stream, NY

Tomek

Premium Member

(IL)Legal Spam

Seriously I don't know the difference between legal and illegal spam. I get email from Dell, BestBuy, because I asked them. Others I consider intruders and mark them as spam. How can I know if opt-out list isn't another spam hitlist?
It's like letting medic disarm a nuclear bomb. Guess what happens?
PineTrees
join:2001-05-30
Somewhere

PineTrees

Member

Gov't

Just another example how Big Business has the Gov't on it's leash, For the Business, By The Business, Not the people.
JPCass
join:2001-01-23
Denver, CO

JPCass

Member

The next step

Obviously this law is flawed, but I think the question now is do we treat the glass as half empty, or half full? At least the theoretical disucssions are over for the time being, and we can see what effects an actual law has, and then maybe resume the debate with some real data about what works and what doesn't.

I think the passing of the law creates an expectation of major spam relief among a spam-weary public, not to mention ISPs and businesses burdened with spam costs. If that relief doesn't happen, there should be major pressure to do something that really does produce significant results, and the obstructionists like the DMA will have trouble arguing for weak laws in the face of reality. I think even the DMA will be for laws that do as much as possible to eliminate renegade spam, because it harms their members' ability to get their message seen. I suspect that some of the weakness of the new law was actually political calculation that a weaker law has to be tried, and have its shortcomings exposed, before enough parties can be brought on board to enact a stronger measure.

So now how do we make lemonaid from this lemon?

••••

BrooklynZoo
For Everthing Else, There's Mastercard
join:2001-04-01
Atlanta, GA

1 recommendation

BrooklynZoo

Member

Bush did a good thing!

I feel that Bush needs to keep screwing Americans in the back door. Unfortunately folks, SPAM is non-partisan. Spammers love Repubs, Dems, Independents, non-voters and the like.

I believe this to be a good thing because I am going to start thinking "big business" like Republicans and grow my company into a "legit" marketing company and start spamming the heck out of you.

Bush / Cheney 2004, baby. Early retirement, here I come! Finally, I am on Bush's side. Bush / Cheney / Oil and Spam 2004. Like 50 said "Get rich or die democratic (really it's die Tryin)!" Ha Ha!

Bush declared war on Spam with this Act like he declared war on terrorism. Yeah baby. Bush all the way! I am going to get rich off of this one! /SARCASM
Cybertoad
join:2001-11-08
Houston, TX

1 edit

Cybertoad

Member

Doesn't change anything for us ...

Well, I work for a hosting provider and our official
company position is to filter out and block all SPAM.

Anyone who actually wants SPAM can take their account
elsewhere. On the other hand, I've never met anyone
who actually wanted SPAM ... go figure.

starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium Member
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX

starstuff

Premium Member

Re: Doesn't change anything for us ...

said by Cybertoad:

.... company position is to filter out and block all SPAM.

99.99% of the spam rejected a our smtp servers is rejected because of the fact that spammers use illegal tactics to hide themselves. ie. no reverse DNS, posting from open relays with faked email addresses, nonexistent hosts in helo, etc.

Now, spammers don't need to hide and they will be using legit accounts. Needles to say a lot of spam will get trough checks and filters.
mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA

1 recommendation

mglunt

Member

You Bush Bashers - consider this.

This bill passed both the house and senate by a combined..

489-5

But somehow this is all Bush's fault?

This bill sets forth a recomendation for a no-spam-list... and does the following...

Other sections of the bill prohibit the following:

• Falsifying e-mail header information or using either a mail server or open relay to "deceive or mislead recipients" about the origin of a commercial e-mail message. Also outlawed is registering for "5 or more" e-mail accounts or "2 or more domain names" with false information and using them to send commercial e-mail messages. Penalties include up to three years in prison for a first offense.

• Sending commercial e-mail with deceptive subject lines that "would be likely to mislead a recipient."

• Sending commercial e-mail that does not include "a functioning return" address or a link to a Web form that is capable of accepting unsubscribe requests.

• E-mail address "harvesting" by crawling Web sites and automated guessing of e-mail addresses by trying mike1@aol.com, mike2@aol.com and so on.

• Using automated methods such as scripts to sign up for free Web-based e-mail accounts such as ones provided by Hotmail or Yahoo.

• Sending commercial e-mail with "sexually oriented material" unless it includes a label to be devised by the FTC. That requirement does not apply to opt-in lists. Violations can be punished by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

In a prepared statement, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates said the bill "will help consumers regain control of their inboxes and support e-mail service providers in their battle to contain the spam menace.

•••••••••••••

mikeky
Premium Member
join:2001-12-07
Kentucky

mikeky

Premium Member

More spam?

How is this act going to increase spam?

••••••
pbaldwin
join:2002-12-17
Dupo, IL

pbaldwin

Member

Buncha Cry Babies

Not sure if most of you posers are getting spam or just Busch bashing.

Personally I don't get more than 2 or 3 spam messages a week, and I have an address published on a public site. Then again I use a crap e-mail account to sign up for stuff and delete all the messages received automatically. Probably to complicated for those that don't understand how the legislative process works to actually get a bill to the President for a signature.

Yeah we need another Democrat as President, then all will be well again. Except I'll have to pay more taxes to support all the stupid, lazy, welfare hogs. Like they say GET A JOB.

starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium Member
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX

starstuff

Premium Member

Re: Buncha Cry Babies

said by pbaldwin:

Yeah we need another Democrat as President, then all will be well again. Except I'll have to pay more taxes to support all the stupid, lazy, welfare hogs. Like they say GET A JOB.

We still have to pay more taxes for "stupid, lazy, welfare hogs" and we'll pay more once those 25 million illegal aliens become legal residents.

Republicans used to describe Democrats as the "tax and spend" crowd. Everything is the same except the terms have changed. Welfare is now "compassionate conservatism", I dodge the draft is now "I'm with America's finest", We're isolated in the war is now "the coalition", economic depression is now "jobless recovery", ship our jobs overseas is now "out sourcing"

tcp1
Premium Member
join:2000-04-17
Monument, CO

tcp1 to pbaldwin

Premium Member

to pbaldwin
2 or 3? When did you get your e-mail address, last month?

I have an e-mail address I've had for five years - i get TWO TO THREE.. HUNDRED pieces of spam a week. This is NOT the yahoo address I use to sign up for things and buy things.

I'm not sure how you relate this to "lazy welfare hogs" and telling people to "get a job" -- well, you're doing what lots of so called "conservatives" do -- relating one point loosely to another that has nothing to do with it.

Oh, and it's spelled Bush.

AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium Member
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX

AmeritecTech

Premium Member

No Point in a Veto

Whether he signed it or not, it would have passed.

The Senate
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Not Voting
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Not Voting
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Not Voting
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

97 Yeas, 3 Abstained.

The House of Representatives

Yeas

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

Nays

Honda
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kucinich
Lofgren
Paul

Yeas 392
Nays 5
Abstained 37

A Bush veto would have had no effect.

••••••••

InfamousCow
Milk is overrated
Premium Member
join:2003-09-23
Collegeville, PA

1 recommendation

InfamousCow

Premium Member

Resigned to reality

Sigh.
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete..........

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

KrK

Premium Member

Re: Resigned to reality

Sigh.

More like.

"Sorry I didn't get your email. Apparently my inbox exceeded the 10 MB server limit because it had 9000 spam messages in it, because I hadn't checked my email mail in 2 days.

Sorry...

InfamousCow
Milk is overrated
Premium Member
join:2003-09-23
Collegeville, PA

InfamousCow

Premium Member

Re: Resigned to reality

Exactly...

aggiejy
Premium Member
join:2002-07-10
Wimberley, TX

aggiejy

Premium Member

Good Spam vs. Bad Spam

Ok, no spam is good spam usually, but regardless... I don't see this as a big pro-spam move. It certainly doesn't help reduce clutter from my mailbox, but then again... my spam problems are 95% from the "Viagra", "Grow your penis", "I'm a Nigerian Dimond heir" crews. Most of them from from overseas. Now... if every spam that I get has a clear unsubscribe feature, I wouldn't have a problem at all. So, although you are making commercial email legal for legit companies, those same companies also have to strictly adhere to the existing laws for unsubscribing, etc. Also, once you have all of the big companies adhering to the new laws, we can add in things to require "Adv:" in the subject, etc. Any way I look at it, it seems like a good thing (or at least a not-bad thing).

Tell me where I'm wrong.

(And don't blame bush for not vetoing... as the previous post said, it wouldn't have made a difference.)
mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA

mglunt

Member

Re: Good Spam vs. Bad Spam

Exactly. If Bush vetoes it, it only takes what 2/3rds to overturn the veto.

I think 99% > 66% right?

People need to study up on how the Goverment works.

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

TechyDad

Premium Member

The Whack-A-Mole game begins now...

So now any company can sign you up for mailings so long as they provide a means of unsubscribing. Of course, you have no way of knowing if that unsubscribe link will really remove you or will add you to the spammer's "Live E-mail Addresses" list. A whack-a-mole game where some (most?) of the moles explode when you whack them!

<sarcasm>How fun! Thanks to Bush and Congress for this fun game!</sarcasm>

Ok, I can't really blame Bush too much. If he vetoed, everyone would berate him for vetoing anti-spam legislation (most folks wouldn't understand why this law is a bad thing). Then Congress would have simply overridden his veto.

•••••••
page: 1 · 2 · next