Re: Standard?
Denis McKeon (dmckeon@swcp.com)
Tue, 3 Dec 1996 16:07:31 -0700
In <199612031926.LAA09114@dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com>,
Richard Gaskin <Ambassador@FourthWorld.com> wrote:
>>I'm not quite sure how enforcible a ban on junk email would be. How is
>>the US government going to prosecute a spammer based in taiwan or brazil?
>
>As with junk faxes, this is not a significant problem; most spamming
>comes from the US. Few other cultures foster such blindly consumptive
>habits.
>
>And Nigel Rantor writes:
>>:The simplest path is to write your Congressional representatives and
>>:encourage them to fix this matter by clarifying the terms of the
>>:anti-junk-fax law to explicitely include protection for email users as
>>:well as fax owners.
>>
>>Can I have some more info on this?
>
>The legal text you're looking for is identified as USC 47.5.II, Section
>227.
Perhaps more accessible as: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html
but, please, let's stick to the topic of robots on this list - the
recently created group news:news.admin.net-abuse.email is bulging with
discussion about commercial e-mail, so let's not do it here as well.
--
Denis McKeon
dmckeon@swcp.com
_________________________________________________
This messages was sent by the robots mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail
to robots-request@webcrawler.com with the word "unsubscribe" in the body.
For more info see http://info.webcrawler.com/mak/projects/robots/robots.html