OT - US House Passes Anti-Spam Bill

Page 2 of 2  
On 26 Nov 2003 15:25:15 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

Filters, Charlie.
Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
Trent
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Bob S." wrote in message

Death is a problem ... so being alive is part of the problem?
... thank gawd!
Despite all attempts to the contrary, the final solution to the SPAM problem will be a TECHNOLOGICAL solution, NOT a legislative solution.
I said it ... you read it here.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You may be right but they haven't worked so far. Just like the filters you're using now. Something more needs to be done, whether its a combination of law and technology or whatever - so long as it works better than what we have. And to those that say this overrides the state laws, I have to ask, just how effective were they in reality?
And to address you're analogy...you're not dead yet, so it's not the problem!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Actually, it will take a combination of laws and technological advances ... after all, you gotta give the spammers "due process" before you can publicly execute them.
I've never had much faith in filters, but this guy does wonders with them:
http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html
Couple these ideas in AI, with advances in tcp/ip technology (ipvX), and we will eventually make it tough to continue the practice by taking the profit out of it.
BTW, the older I get, the more staying alive _is_ a problem. ;>)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I can agree to that but its been far to many years since I've written any "killer assembly code", so maybe aggravating the local / national legislators will be my only contribution (other than bitching here of course...)
Interesting site - worth a read.
Thanks,
Bob S.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I guess I don't understand everybody's fuss over spam, Bob.
I don't see any spam email...just like I don't see any spam in this group.
Its all in the filters.
Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
Trent
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com says...

that could be halved if spam went away.
Just because you (and I) seldom see it doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:58:42 -0800, Larry Blanchard

There's a LOT of problems in the world, Larry. I can't solve them all...nor am I concerned with them all.
And, obviously...disk space and bandwidth is not a major problem for them, either.
And...DEFINE spam! That's one of the big problems. Spam SELLS!...that's why its still out there. Its been out there for YEARS. Do you think it'd still be out there if it wasn't profitable?
I've purchased several things...that I was made aware of because of 'spam'.
Do you want to stop unsolicited snail mail, too?
Deal with the problem...on your end. Let the ISP's take care of their own problems.
Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
Trent
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There _were_ laws on the books in about 30 states. I happen to live in a state which had one, albeit a moderately weak one. That law will be 'invalid' as of the first of the year. along with the one in WA that let a recipient sue for $500 for -each- unsolicited email. And the one that was just enacted in Calif, that let a provider sue for something like $100 for each unsolicited message received on their server, to something like $250,000/day/sender.
I'd have had -no- objections to the Fed. legislation *IF* it had left the state-level laws _alone_. But it didn't.
And, we're going to be "stuck" with this POS legislation for _years_. After all, the Congresscritters _have_ "addressed" the problem. It's "solved".
It won't be "deserving" of Congressional attention "again", for _years_. (It usually takes Congress 7-10 years to 'revisit' something. The 'fastest' instance I know of -- excluding 'funding' legislation, that is -- where Congress reversed itself on legislation was 4 years.)
Watch and see.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:24:42 +0000, snipped-for-privacy@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

I don't remember everything from my law classes...but don't the states have jurisdiction in intrastate transactions?
Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
Trent
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Trent wrote:

Not since President Linconln they don't.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan < snipped-for-privacy@users.sourceforge.net>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The proverbial "It depends" applies.
If the Feds can find an excuse to invoke the Commerce Clause of the Constitution -- and they _have_ stretched it to include covering strictly 'in-state' transactions that "might affect" interstate commerce, "because there are similar inter-state transactions" -- the primacy of Federal law can be asserted.
Whether or not that is a 'justified' exercise of Federal jurisdiction *is* hotly debated in some circles. In the 'real world', it doesn't matter how that debate comes out, because the courts _have_, *repeatedly*, upheld that rationale for Federal 'meddling'.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

*ALL* states have legal codes that -can- be used. Threre are civil torts for things like 'theft of services', and "trespass to chattel". These _have_ been *successfully* used to sue spammers.

"Maybe it's 'better for some'. It is *definitely* _worse_ for many others. Which was _un-necessary_. Pass the federal legislation *without* pre-empting state laws, and you have the 'best of both worlds'.
Care to guess *why* Congress _didn't_ do that? Hint: the -main- motivation was to disembowel the aggressive state-level laws being enacted.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The real key to ending spam is PROFIT. Put a federal tax on all email, even stuff that originates outside the US. Exempt a reasonable amout of messages per month, say 50 or even 1000. Make the sender pay it. For overseas stuff block all email from countries that refuse to pay up. SPAM is almost free to send, but it puts a large strain on resources, so make the spammers pay.
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:31:31 +0000, snipped-for-privacy@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George in Maine states:

How long do you think it would take spammers to beat the limits? 30 seconds? 45?
Charlie Self
"Say what you will about the ten commandments, you must always come back to the pleasant fact that there are only ten of them." H. L. Mencken
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Great ideas!
Now...how would you administer any of this? lol
Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
Trent
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.