Spam Officially Legal Bush signs off on Can Spam Act Tuesday Dec 16 2003 14:46 EDT 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. |
1 edit
1 recommendation |
they're asking for it nowalright 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 | |
| |
3 recommendations |
Re: they're asking for it nowsaid 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. | |
| | | 1 edit |
Re: they're asking for it nowYeah 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 |
to TheMadSwede
I agree. Presidents are usually just puppets for the party. | |
| | | | mglunt join:2001-09-10 Fredericksburg, VA |
mglunt
Member
2003-Dec-16 3:39 pm
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. | |
| | Asus RT-AC66
|
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 |
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 |
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 | |
| | ghostpainterI Write for the Apocalypse MVM join:2002-05-25 Rancho Cucamonga, CA |
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
2003-Dec-16 11:10 pm
Re: they're asking for it nowGator 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. | |
| | | | ghostpainterI Write for the Apocalypse MVM join:2002-05-25 Rancho Cucamonga, CA |
Re: they're asking for it nowsaid 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??? | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2 Zoom 5341J
|
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! | |
|
Dreadwing6Unleash The Giver2 Premium Member join:2002-03-10 Da Bronx? 1 edit |
Like they careAll 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 |
Re: Like they careWhen 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?????? | |
|
|
RE: Spam Officially LegalIt 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
2003-Dec-21 11:15 am
Re: RE: Spam Officially LegalBush 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. | |
|
B52GUNRKM 7D love and D5 Nirvana MVM join:2001-03-06 Suisun City, CA |
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. | |
| | wcmi92Mike join:2003-01-01 Ashland, KY |
wcmi92
Member
2003-Dec-16 2:10 pm
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... | |
| | | TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY 1 edit |
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." | |
|
| starstuffFly By Wire Premium Member join:2001-12-05 Mcallen, TX |
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
2003-Dec-16 2:26 pm
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. | |
|
| | |
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! | |
| | | | |
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! | |
|
| AkumalDaveLife's A Beach Premium Member join:2001-04-20 Minneapolis, MN |
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
2003-Dec-16 8:37 pm
Re: Guess who I'm NOT voting for.He has a stamp. =P | |
|
| AmeritecTechChange we can believe in, 1922 Premium Member join:2002-09-06 Houston, TX |
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 |
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. | |
| | | AmeritecTechChange we can believe in, 1922 Premium Member join:2002-09-06 Houston, TX |
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%. | |
|
| GlaiceBrutal Video Vault Premium Member join:2002-10-01 North Babylon, NY |
to B52GUNR
I'll vote for Dean | |
| | | mglunt join:2001-09-10 Fredericksburg, VA |
mglunt
Member
2003-Dec-16 7:44 pm
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 |
to B52GUNR
Guess who you would never vote for under any circumstance Duh!!!!! | |
| | wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb.. join:2003-07-30 Maineville, OH |
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 | |
| | | AmeritecTechChange we can believe in, 1922 Premium Member join:2002-09-06 Houston, TX |
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? | |
|
PlasticmanWill Work For Bandwidth Premium Member join:2002-09-06 Johnston, RI |
Now this sucksNow 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
2003-Dec-16 2:21 pm
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
2003-Dec-16 2:21 pm
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? | |
| | |
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
2003-Dec-16 2:29 pm
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
2003-Dec-16 2:31 pm
(IL)Legal SpamSeriously 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? | |
| |
Gov'tJust 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
2003-Dec-16 3:01 pm
The next stepObviously 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? | |
| | •••• | BrooklynZooFor Everthing Else, There's Mastercard join:2001-04-01 Atlanta, GA
1 recommendation |
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 | |
| 1 edit |
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. | |
| | starstuffFly By Wire Premium Member join:2001-12-05 Mcallen, TX |
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
2003-Dec-16 3:31 pm
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
2003-Dec-16 3:44 pm
More spam?How is this act going to increase spam? | |
| | •••••• | |
Buncha Cry BabiesNot 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. | |
| | starstuffFly By Wire Premium Member join:2001-12-05 Mcallen, TX |
Re: Buncha Cry Babiessaid 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 |
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. | |
|
AmeritecTechChange we can believe in, 1922 Premium Member join:2002-09-06 Houston, TX |
No Point in a VetoWhether he signed it or not, it would have passed. The SenateAkaka (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 RepresentativesYeas 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. | |
| | •••••••• | InfamousCowMilk is overrated Premium Member join:2003-09-23 Collegeville, PA
1 recommendation |
Resigned to realitySigh. Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete.......... | |
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK |
KrK
Premium Member
2003-Dec-16 8:04 pm
Re: Resigned to realitySigh.
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... | |
| | | InfamousCowMilk is overrated Premium Member join:2003-09-23 Collegeville, PA |
Re: Resigned to realityExactly... | |
|
aggiejy Premium Member join:2002-07-10 Wimberley, TX |
aggiejy
Premium Member
2003-Dec-16 4:17 pm
Good Spam vs. Bad SpamOk, 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
2003-Dec-16 4:29 pm
Re: Good Spam vs. Bad SpamExactly. 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
2003-Dec-16 4:28 pm
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. | |
| | •••••••
| | |
|
|