[SpamCop-List] Re: First Can-Spam lawsuit
David.Martin at skill-it.com
Sun Mar 7 10:37:51 EST 2004
If I had the max of 100$ for each spam I got, I would be rich quite soon.
"Berny" <bar_n0ne at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2eobt$8eo$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> "Blammo" <ric.gates at bigsleep.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns94A529D99D2blammo at 18.104.22.168...
> > On 06 Mar 2004 Marc entered spamcop and left
> > news:c2edhh$v1c$1 at news.spamcop.net:
> > > Directed against Bluestreammedia. Sounds on target to me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > More proof the law is useless. Why punish BobVila.com, I'm sure they're
> > a big-time spammer, not that I like Bob but at least I've never gotten
> > spam from him. As far as BlueStream Media goes, I don't know, never
> > 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,
More information about the SpamCop-List