Re: Spam laws threaten remailers?

["Ross Wright" <rwright@adnetsol.com>]

On or About 22 May 97 at 15:25, Greg Broiles wrote:

> Both of the anti-spam bills that I've seen (CAUCE and Murkowski's)
> are poorly drafted - they're both overbroad and underinclusive. I
> don't think they're necessarily constitutionally "overbroad", but
> they haven't been written by people with a good understanding of the
> technical issues.
> 
> As I read both bills, they'll prohibit behavior pretty universally
> considered legitimate - e.g., including a link to a web site in your
> .signature which happens to sell a product or service, for example.

This is really going too far!!!  I was told, when I first got 
on-line, that this was a "polite" way to get your product or service 
out there, without spamming.  By posting on-topic replies to usenet 
and high traffic mailing lists, like this one...  Shit, I hate this 
"one bad kid gets the rest of the class in trouble" mentality.  I am 
really pissed at this whole issue and the goverment trying to get 
it's grubby paws on the net any way they can!

I am also irked at the public's desire for this government 
intervention.
 
> I think it'd make more sense to solve this problem technically,
> and/or carefully think about the legal framework appropriate for
> governing the flow of data between computers. (There are also sticky
> First Amendment issues here.)

You got that right.
 
> Ugh.
> 

Arrrrgh.

Ross

=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ross Wright
King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services
http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia
Voice: (408) 259-2795