From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Dec 2 13:01:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA03227 for chat-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 13:01:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from sumatra.americantv.com (sumatra.americantv.com [207.170.17.37]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA03205 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 13:00:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jlemon@americantv.com) Received: from right.PCS (right.PCS [148.105.10.31]) by sumatra.americantv.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA24228; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:46:57 -0600 (CST) Received: (from jlemon@localhost) by right.PCS (8.6.13/8.6.4) id OAA09786; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:46:25 -0600 Message-ID: <19971202144625.59050@right.PCS> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:46:25 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon To: felix@royal.net Cc: Stephen Roome , behind brown eyes , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: annoying spammers... References: <19971202140326.51308@right.PCS> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.61.1 In-Reply-To: ; from Aled Treharne on Dec 12, 1997 at 08:31:21PM +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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