On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 10:47:59AM -0800, Horst wrote: > On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Bob Crandell wrote: > ... > > alot. My thought is that SPAMers are using technology to create a > > problem therefore we should use technology to frustrate their efforts. > > No technology and no government oppression is going to stop SPAM just > > like it didn't stop junk FAX. > > But Bob, thinking as a business owner - if spammers intentionally waste > your time and money (as it has happened in the past, and maybe even > related to your current thread regarding "Limit to 4 email" (*), why then > shouldn't you be legally entitled to recover some of the costs, as for any > other intentional damage inflicted on your business? > For that you need some legal leverage. > Those uninvited IP packets on your networks and machines are a form of > modern trespassing. Sure, it won't *completely* solve the problem, like > laws against trespassing haven't *completely* eliminated trespassing --but > do you wish the government would have left it all just up to you to deal > with trespassers? ...................Horst
I would assume that people put "No Trespassing" signs on their property ... property that someone may likely think, "Well, there's no signs." ... to gain legal leverage. What if you put something like: "Charge for unsolicited email acceptance: $50 per message." in your mail server banner? There's the charge per delivery (and a hefty one at that), as well as no gov't involvement (or at least no really _new_ gov't involvement), solved in both a technical and legal manner. -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Eug-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
