From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Dec 4 05:39:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA21635 for chat-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 05:39:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from wakko.visint.co.uk (wakko.visint.co.uk [194.207.134.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA21623 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 05:39:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from steve@visint.co.uk) Received: from dylan.visint.co.uk (dylan.visint.co.uk [194.207.134.180]) by wakko.visint.co.uk (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA01719 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:39:26 GMT Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:39:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Stephen Roome To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: annoying spammers... In-Reply-To: <199712022212.OAA05302@kithrup.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Sean Eric Fagan wrote: > In article <19971202144625.59050.kithrup.freebsd.chat@right.PCS> you write: > >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. > > We have several lawyers working with "us" on CAUCE (http://www.cauce.org/). > Their feeling is that, no, the "junk fax" law does not apply to spam -- > it is apparantly clear from the congressional record that Congress intended > only fax machines to be covered, not computers -- and even though a computer > with a fax modem is, email is *not*. AFAIK there's a bit of law in the UK or something that implies that although it's written in some statute book that you can't do XXXX. There's a limit to how far it will go, and I'm pretty certain that a fair few cases have been thrown out due to people taking the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law, which is it's purpose. Again, I don't know what it's like in the US, but I expect much the same ideal is hopefully upheld (or attempted anyway), in which case I'm still not certain whether fax == computer is true or not. They didn't intend it that way originally, but it's possibly more applicable now. The fax machine here gets less comms than my mailbox. > HOwever, if you're in the US, call yoru congresscritter and support the > Smith Bill -- it basicly adds email to the junk fax law, which has been > upheld in courts so far, meaning that the email version would likely as > well. And, unlike the other two bills introduced into congress, it is an > opt-in scheme (as opposed to an "opt-out" scheme, whereby you have to ask to > be removed from the list, for each spammer who has a list). What if we are subject to US law, i.e. own a US domain name, but aren't residents of the US ? The law still applies to our actions, although we'd need to be extradited in case of court appearances ? Does our voice still count though ? (doubt it) Steve -- Steve Roome - Vision Interactive Ltd. Tel:+44(0)117 9730597 Home:+44(0)976 241342 WWW: http://dylan.visint.co.uk/