"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:41:25 -0500, mc wrote:

One thing is certain: the world would be _much_ better off if the
LEAs
would enforce the existing laws.

I agree wholeheartedly. Most spam violates pre-existing fraud laws,
not
just CAN-SPAM.

No, the problem is that it doesn't violate any fraud laws. They're not

The spam is fraudulent when it uses spoofing to hide its origin.
Virtually all spam does so.

defrauding anybody. The problem is that they're loading up everybody's
mailbox in the world with worthless spam email, the equivalent of
ordinary junk snail mail. But with junk snail mail, at least you could

No, it's not equivalent. Junk mail is paid for by the advertiser.
Spammers pay nothing! They're thieves.

use it for kindling. It doesn't matter that the content isn't
deceptive -
it's there, and it's jamming the internet. The only thing you could do
is
prohibit ISPs from allowing any spam to be sent through them, but as
has
been noted else-thread, they know which side their bread is margarined
on.

Of course, a solution occurs to me, which would, of course, be even
worse,
and that would be to charge for bytes times # of recipients.

If you send an email with more than five recipients, it costs you a
dime
apiece for each additional recipient.

And you're not allowed to send any more than one email per, say, ten
seconds.

But that will never be implemented. It makes entirely too much sense.

It already has been implemented by some ISPs. It's called teergrubing.
That's the German word for tarpit.

Thanks,
Rich