> actually I'd settle for well-defined mandatory labelling - at the SMTP > level for big volume spammers and at the 822 level for everyone. Perhaps a future First Lady Tipper Gore will try to help you out there, as she did for the consumers of recorded music. Around here, we've been warned against sending "profane content" by people who obviously don't know the meaning of "profane".
- Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-M... Keith Moore
- Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spa... Doug Isenberg
- Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting... Keith Moore
- Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limi... Chip Rosenthal
- Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill ... Keith Moore
- Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill ... Mark Atwood
- RE: fyi.. House Committee Passes ... James Wilson
- Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limi... Fred Baker
- Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill ... Mike Truskowski
- Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill ... Keith Moore
- Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes ... Matt Crawford
- Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-M... Kurt Weber
- RE: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-M... Dan Kohn
- Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-M... Eric Brunner
- Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-M... Lillian Komlossy
- RE: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-M... Dawson, Peter D
- Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spa... Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-M... Jeffrey Altman
- Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-M... Bob Allisat
