"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

I read in sci.electronics.design that Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the
Dark Remover" wrote (in
pernews.com) about 'SPAMMERS (was Digikey doth truly rule', on Mon,
28 Feb 2005:

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

It depends on how you define 'legalize'. If no law applies to some
activity, it could be taken as 'outside the scope of law', so when a law
is applied to it, it becomes within the scope of law, and the verb
'legalize' could well be applied to that action of 'bringing within the
scope of law'.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

In article ,
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\" wrote:

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

There are those who feel that the CAN SPAM law both legitimizes and
legalizes spam, in two ways:

- It sets specific Federal boundaries on what sorts of spam are
illegal (and thus by implication states that spams which don't
cross those boundaries are legitimate), and

- It preempts most State laws which had stronger restrictions on
spamming, and therefore makes legal certain spams which were
previously forbidden by State law.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:56:57 +0000, Dave Platt wrote:

In article ,
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\" wrote:

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

There are those who feel that the CAN SPAM law both legitimizes and
legalizes spam, in two ways:

- It sets specific Federal boundaries on what sorts of spam are
illegal (and thus by implication states that spams which don't
cross those boundaries are legitimate), and

- It preempts most State laws which had stronger restrictions on
spamming, and therefore makes legal certain spams which were
previously forbidden by State law.

And this is the part that really ****es me off, because it is in direct
violation of Article 10:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively,
or to the people."

Thanks,
Rich

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\"
wrote:

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

There are those who feel that the CAN SPAM law both legitimizes and
legalizes spam, in two ways:

- It sets specific Federal boundaries on what sorts of spam are
illegal (and thus by implication states that spams which don't
cross those boundaries are legitimate), and

In order to be constitutional the law has to meet certain criteria. One
is that it has to put limits on commercial speech without being
burdensome. The law has to be explicit enough to keep itr from being
defeated on appeal.

- It preempts most State laws which had stronger restrictions on
spamming, and therefore makes legal certain spams which were
previously forbidden by State law.

For five years, Calif had laws that were on the books but were
unenforced. They were challengd as unconstitutional. They and 35 other
state laws weren't consistent, making it a mess for the courts and
lawyers in every state. We had 36 different tools but they were largely
unused. Now there is a consistent set of national laws with much better
chance of being enforced. Someone has to light a fire under the feds to
get them to step up the enforcement. All this bitching, whining and
nmoaning about what used to be and how bad it is now is a huge waste of
time. Get over it and proceed on with the tools given to us, and hammer
the spammers.

--
Dave Platt
AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page:
http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), "Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\"" wrote:

For five years, Calif had laws that were on the books but were
unenforced. They were challengd as unconstitutional. They and 35 other
state laws weren't consistent, making it a mess for the courts and
lawyers in every state. We had 36 different tools but they were largely
unused. Now there is a consistent set of national laws with much better
chance of being enforced. Someone has to light a fire under the feds to
get them to step up the enforcement. All this bitching, whining and
nmoaning about what used to be and how bad it is now is a huge waste of
time. Get over it and proceed on with the tools given to us, and hammer
the spammers.

Horse exhaust.

You-Can-Spam, under the guise of improving the situation by applying
one uniform law everywhere, forced everything into one badly-fitting,
Procrustean bed, overriding and effectively nullifying existing state
laws, some of which (Washington, California) were *very* much better
written and more effective.

Yes, those laws got challenged as unconstitutional. A challenge by
itself means nothing; it's the *OUTCOME* of the challenge that means
something, and the Washington and California laws survived all the
challenges against them. It's because they survived those challenges,
thereby putting fear into the cryostats[1] of the folks who run the
advertising industry and of the Senators from Coca-Cola, Time-Warner,
and the other big owners of federal legislators, that You-Can-Spam
came to be.

Private right of action used to exist because of state laws, but that
right now has been removed by You-Can-Spam, and only providers and
Attorneys General have standing to sue.

You-Can-Spam is tailor-made for the advertising industry, which comes
as no surprise to me, because the folks who really wrote it certainly
appear to have been advertising industry lobbyists.

If you don't like all the bitching, whining, and moaning about what
used to be, then you have the right to move somewhere that prohibits
it. Choose carefully: places that prohibit it may not let you move out
again. Me, I'll stay here and bitch, whine, moan, and lean hard on my
congresscritters.

[1] We can be quite certain that they don't have hearts. A heart is
not capable of pumping liquid Helium.

Followups to news.admin.net-abuse.email, where this subthread belongs.

--
Mike Andrews, W5EGO

Tired old sysadmin

"Mike Andrews" wrote in message
...
In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew),
"Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\"" wrote:

For five years, Calif had laws that were on the books but were
unenforced. They were challengd as unconstitutional. They and 35
other
state laws weren't consistent, making it a mess for the courts and
lawyers in every state. We had 36 different tools but they were
largely
unused. Now there is a consistent set of national laws with much
better
chance of being enforced. Someone has to light a fire under the
feds to
get them to step up the enforcement. All this bitching, whining and
nmoaning about what used to be and how bad it is now is a huge waste
of
time. Get over it and proceed on with the tools given to us, and
hammer
the spammers.

Horse exhaust.

You-Can-Spam, under the guise of improving the situation by applying
one uniform law everywhere, forced everything into one badly-fitting,
Procrustean bed, overriding and effectively nullifying existing state
laws, some of which (Washington, California) were *very* much better
written and more effective.

Yes, those laws got challenged as unconstitutional. A challenge by
itself means nothing; it's the *OUTCOME* of the challenge that means
something, and the Washington and California laws survived all the
challenges against them. It's because they survived those challenges,
thereby putting fear into the cryostats[1] of the folks who run the
advertising industry and of the Senators from Coca-Cola, Time-Warner,
and the other big owners of federal legislators, that You-Can-Spam
came to be.

Private right of action used to exist because of state laws, but that
right now has been removed by You-Can-Spam, and only providers and
Attorneys General have standing to sue.

You-Can-Spam is tailor-made for the advertising industry, which comes
as no surprise to me, because the folks who really wrote it certainly
appear to have been advertising industry lobbyists.

If you don't like all the bitching, whining, and moaning about what
used to be, then you have the right to move somewhere that prohibits
it. Choose carefully: places that prohibit it may not let you move out
again. Me, I'll stay here and bitch, whine, moan, and lean hard on my
congresscritters.

[1] We can be quite certain that they don't have hearts. A heart is
not capable of pumping liquid Helium.

Followups to news.admin.net-abuse.email, where this subthread belongs.

--
Mike Andrews, W5EGO

Tired old sysadmin

You can belittle others for their opinions, and bitch and whine about
the situation at hand. But like they say, when life hands you a lemon,
make lemonade. Quitcherbitchin, and get on with life. You're
complaining to the wrong crowd - almost everyone really don't care what
you or i think.

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:

You can belittle others for their opinions, and bitch and whine about
the situation at hand. But like they say, when life hands you a lemon,
make lemonade. Quitcherbitchin, and get on with life. You're
complaining to the wrong crowd - almost everyone really don't care what
you or i think.
--------------------------------
There ain't no "life". There are people. When these ****-****ing
mother-****ing *******s hand you lemons you simply gang-up on them
and KILL them. THEN they'll ****ing STOP! THAT'S what Democracy is!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 03:43:16 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:

You can belittle others for their opinions, and bitch and whine about
the situation at hand. But like they say, when life hands you a lemon,
make lemonade. Quitcherbitchin, and get on with life. You're
complaining to the wrong crowd - almost everyone really don't care what
you or i think.
--------------------------------
There ain't no "life". There are people. When these ****-****ing
mother-****ing *******s hand you lemons you simply gang-up on them
and KILL them. THEN they'll ****ing STOP! THAT'S what Democracy is!

What goes around comes around.
--
Pig Bladder on a Stick