[SpamCop-List] re: Idea for Legislation

[Steve Milano]

It never ceases to amaze me how the dumbest people in society not only
don't realize it, but actually think they are the smart ones.

It's so classic -- I specifically asked whining wankers like you not to
reply with unproductive negativity and EVEN LISTED THE TYPE OF
TIME-WASTING ANSWERS I DID NOT WANT OR NEED because I was requesting a
technical answer to technical question.

But of course, you immediately realized that you were smarter than the
rest of us and actually took the time to write down that some spammers
are bad people! Unbelievable!

You did exactly what I requested you not do, when everyone who read the
initial e-mail probably had the same thoughts as I did (yes, some
spammers would ignore it).

But that wasn't the point of the post. I guess you figured all of us
dummies were waiting with baited breath for your brilliant observations,
which we couldn't possibly figure out for ourselves.

You just don't get it! I predicted the answer of all the dumb-asses
pestering this board so that they would not further irritate us, and you
STILL couldn't avoid the "Hey, look, I'm an idiot," spotlight. Stop
wasting other people's time on this board with your mental masturbation!

The point of the legislation would be to reduce the amount of unwanted
spam that gets delivered to a mailbox. Other legislation would be needed
to address other areas, and of course, some spammer would blow it off. I
stated this in my original post! Do you think we're all idiots?

As for your MENSA-like comment that this would not address the drain on
resources, I did not say that this was about addressing taht. I also did
not say that this legislation would reduce smog, cure cancer or increase
automobile fuel efficiency. Why didn't you add your two cents on those?

Because they're not related to the question I asked, you complete moron!

In response to your BRILLIANT comment...

"It also does not address people or networks who will try and test the
law/filters by starting their spam with:

A.D.V.
Adv
ADV
A D V"

...the law would punish people for doing this. You would HAVE to include
the three specific characters or you'd get fined or go to jail. (Please
tell us all that certain spammers wouldn't include the three characters.
We're SO stupid we couldn't figure that out for ourselves.).

If you read more than the comics you could understand long sentences.

As far as certain states having laws that include certain beginnings,
what's your point? Are you actually saying that NO ONE is doing this and
that NO ONE is receiving less spam because they are able to block these?
And are you saying that spammers who violate these laws can't be
prosecuted?

God, are you stupid!

Now why don't cut and paste only portions of this response into yours so
you'll look like less of a dateless nimrod when you try to defend
yourself.

Hey Braniac -- can you answer the original and ONLY question the post
solicited?





"Steve Milano" <smilano1> wrote in message
news:mailman.1025119813.16582.spamcop-list

> I have an idea for anti-spam legislation that would eliminate many, if

> not all, of the first amendment arguments against such laws.
>
> All commercial, bulk, e-mail (whether optin or not) would be required
to
> have a certain set of characters in the subject line (it could be
three
> asterisks, "ADV," etc.).
>
> Anyone who did not want to receive commercial, bulk e-mail would
simply
> set a preference that bounced these e-mails back to the sender.

This does nothing about the drain on resources.  Filtering out words
does
not change this.  Spam that is not delivered still costs all of us
money.
It also does not address people or networks who will try and test the
law/filters by starting their spam with:

A.D.V.
Adv
ADV
A D V

Etcetera.

It also doesn't do anything about spammers who simply don't care.  Much
of
the spam out there is already illegal, why would people bother to send
illegal spam with aa header that makes it "lega;?"

Finally, this has been attempted before in several states:

Certain messages must contain a label ("ADV:" or "ADV:ADLT") at the
beginning of the subject line. in California... In Colorado, unsolicited

commercial e-mail messages must contain a label ("ADV:") at the
beginning of
the subject line... Unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail messages (500 or
more
recipients) and advertisements for sexually explicit content must
contain a
label ("ADV:" or "ADV:ADLT") at the beginning of the subject line when
sent
from Kansas or to Kansas residents... As of March 2003, unsolicited bulk

commercial e-mail messages (500 or more recipients) and advertisements
for
sexually explicit content must contain a label ("ADV:" or "ADV:ADLT") at
the
beginning of the subject line in Minnesota... A Pennsylvania law
approved in
June 2000 requires unsolicited commercial e-mail messages containing
"explicit sexual materials" to contain a label ("ADV-ADULT") at the
beginning of the subject line... In South Dakota, unsolicited commercial

e-mail messages must contain a label ("ADV:" or "ADV:ADLT") at the
beginning
of the subject line... Certain messages from or to people in Tennessee
must
contain a label ("ADV:" or "ADV:ADLT") at the beginning of the subject
line... Utah has a similar law rto everyone else... Wisconsin enacted a
statute that requires unsolicited commercial e-mail messages that
contain
obscene material or depict sexually explicit conduct to include the
words
"ADULT ADVERTISEMENT" in the subject line.

Ref: spamlaws.com
     http://www.spamlaws.com/state/summary.html

Ask members of all of those states how the law helps them.  You'll find
it
doesn't much, and it actually causes an INCREASE of spam because now,
spammers view what they do as "legal," even when they fail to follow
other
parts of the same law, such as not having forged headers.

--
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Two years, two months, two weeks, three days, 17 hours, 47 minutes and
24
seconds.
32349 cigarettes not smoked, saving $4,043.70.
Life saved: 16 weeks, 7 hours, 45 minutes.
See my Sig File FAQ:  http://pages.prodigy.net/briank.o/SigFAQ.htm