Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:12:43 -0800 (PST) From: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@kithrup.com> To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: annoying spammers... Message-ID: <199712022212.OAA05302@kithrup.com> In-Reply-To: <19971202144625.59050.kithrup.freebsd.chat@right.PCS> References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971202202716.3186A-100000@blue.bad.bris.ac.uk>; from Aled Treharne on Dec 12, 1997 at 08:31:21PM %2B0000
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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*. More to the point, you really don't *want* that to happen. Or else every piece of email you send has to have your fax number on every page, you cannot use anonymous remailers, you could be liable for $500 per email message you send to someone (whether it's through a list or not), etc. 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).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712022212.OAA05302>