From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Dec 2 12:04:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA28883 for chat-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:04:48 -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 MAA28873 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:04:41 -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 OAA24130; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:03:58 -0600 (CST) Received: (from jlemon@localhost) by right.PCS (8.6.13/8.6.4) id OAA29429; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:03:27 -0600 Message-ID: <19971202140326.51308@right.PCS> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:03:26 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon To: felix@royal.net Cc: Stephen Roome , behind brown eyes , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: annoying spammers... References: 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 06:19:11PM +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Dec 12, 1997 at 06:19:11PM +0000, Aled Treharne wrote: > We recently had a similar thread on our local newsgroups and this little > snippet appeared form the Law Dept.: > > By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer > meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b) > (1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to > such equipment, punishable by action to recover actual monetary > loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for EACH violation. Um, two things. First, I don't believe that the assertion that (computer == fax) has actually been tested in court. Until it is, this may or may not be true. AFAIK, only Oregon has a law that specifically covers unsolicited email. Second, your email: taff@blue.bad.bris.ac.uk ^^^^^ What would the US Code have to do with the UK? :-) -- Jonathan