"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:57:58 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the
Dark
"Kryten" wrote in message

We should threaten to sue them for not doing their job,
not paying extra to do it.

I don't know where you're at, but (the U.S.) congress had the
foresight
to include a clause in the act that requires the Federal Trade
Commission to report back to congress in 18 months or so with how
well
the law is working. If it finds that the law isn't effective, then
it
can change the law, hopefully the worse for spammers. Perhaps when
the
FTC reports it will tell congress that there is insufficient funding
to
do the job. Then congress can put up some money and hope it helps.

But someday all the i's will get dotted and t's crossed and the
spammers
will not have any way to hide. That may take IPV6, which seems like
it
should have been implemented long ago, but still hasn't. Don't hold
your breath.

This law?
http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html
Or maybe this one?
http://www.angelfire.com/blues2/blowschunks/index.html

You can't legalize something that had no prior restrictions because it
was _already_ legal.

Thanks,
Rich