nanog mailing list archives
Re: identity theft != spam
From: Bill Woodcock <woody () pch net>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 22:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
On Thu, 15 May 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
> what is wrong with this picture?
> this exemplifies the corporate and legislative attempt to confuse
> spam == uce with forgery. if they can make the latter the issue,
> this leaves the way completely clear for unsolicited commercial
> email from the corporate sector which now fills our post boxes with
> ground trees.
Well, the issues are perhaps a little more complex than you're portraying
them. J.I. and I spent the better part of two years working on the
California law, which has a similar provision.
Current thread:
- Re: identity theft != spam, (continued)
- Re: identity theft != spam Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam John Payne (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Daniel Golding (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Chris Horry (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Randy Bush (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Chris Woodfield (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Charles Sprickman (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Vadim Antonov (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Peter Galbavy (May 16)
- Re: identity theft != spam steve uurtamo (May 16)
- Re: identity theft != spam Charles Sprickman (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Bill Woodcock (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Bill Woodcock (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Steven M. Bellovin (May 15)
