Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:46:25 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com> To: felix@royal.net Cc: Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk>, behind brown eyes <benji@haven.boston.ma.us>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: annoying spammers... Message-ID: <19971202144625.59050@right.PCS> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971202202716.3186A-100000@blue.bad.bris.ac.uk>; from Aled Treharne on Dec 12, 1997 at 08:31:21PM %2B0000 References: <19971202140326.51308@right.PCS> <Pine.BSF.3.96.971202202716.3186A-100000@blue.bad.bris.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 12, 1997 at 08:31:21PM +0000, Aled Treharne wrote: > THe posting to our newsgroup stated that it had (in some small case > unrelated to spam) and that it was successfull. Besides (pardon me for > being naive) if the law says X is true isn't it? If a computer meets the > definition of a fax machine isn't or shouldn't that be the b all and end > all of it? Or does law follow rules that have nothing do with reality. Well, that seems to be the crux of the matter. The courts have not (AFAIK) ruled that a computer meets the definition of a fax machine. If it has, then I have a bunch of $500 claims I'd like to send out. And yes, the law usually has nothing to do with reality, assuming that you define reality as something related to common sense. :-) -- Jonathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971202144625.59050>