[SpamCop-List] Re: First Can-Spam lawsuit

[David Martin]

If I had the max of 100$ for each spam I got, I would be rich quite soon.

David.

"Berny" <bar_n0ne at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2eobt$8eo$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> "Blammo" <ric.gates at bigsleep.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns94A529D99D2blammo at 216.154.195.61...
> > On 06 Mar 2004 Marc entered spamcop and left
> > news:c2edhh$v1c$1 at news.spamcop.net:
> >
> > > Directed against Bluestreammedia. Sounds on target to me.
> > >
> > >
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,62559,00.html?tw=wn_polihead_1
> > >
> >
> > More proof the law is useless. Why punish BobVila.com, I'm sure they're
> not
> > a big-time spammer, not that I like Bob but at least I've never gotten
any
> > spam from him. As far as BlueStream Media goes, I don't  know, never
heard
> > of them. My point being that the law only hurts legitimate companies by
> > forcing them to follow the rules to the letter. The real problem is not
> > addressed because real spammers could care less about the law.
> >
> > Said Fallat, "Will this stop spam? No. But at least we'll shrink it,
> > hopefully."
> > It won't, it will increase it because it enforces the idea spammers have
> > that, by claiming to follow the law, they have the right to send spam.
> > --
> > | Ric
>
> Anybody actually seen a spam lately thet followed the law?
> Valid reply to,
> Served from the source,
> doesn;t use trojaned/hijacked machines, open proxies, relays?
> Meaningful subject,
> Accurate subject?
> lacking BS content to evade filters?
>
> ........
>
>
>
>
> Thought not,
>
>