Micheal Espinola Jr, on 9/21/2007 8:42 AM, said the following: > On 9/21/07, Charles Marcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Oh, ok, I see here you essentially agree that what you wrote before was >> plain wrong...
> Not at all. Because in court, there is one plaintiff and one > defendant. Anything relating to "bulk", doesnt neccessarily apply - > because spams are typically sent to individual recipients. > > For whatever reason, you didn't quote me properly: I did the best I could, considering you top-posted... This was you, responding to Jeroen's post: >> They have an excellent point, and thier definition is used as a >> reference in many court cases. The primary factor being the defined >> terminology of, "it's not about content, it's about consent". > Since an email is sent to an individual recipient - where is the bulk, > and how would you prove or refer to it in court? Often the headers will tell the tale... also the content. But I agree it may be difficult to prove one way or the other, without other evidence besides just the one email. But you were the one who said: > In legal terms, spam isn't bulk mail. Its anything that you didn't > want to receive. The precedent has already been established. and again, this is just plain wrong. Just because I don't 'want' a particular email doesn't make it SPAM. -- Best regards, Charles ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Assp-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-user
