And isn't the Washington/Oregon issue about _receiving_ spam, rather than
having one's server co-opted to send it? Maybe it isn't illegal to send it,
but using my equipment without authorization sure is a form of trespass, if
not theft of services. Then when they're forced to use their own equipment,
we'll better be able to filter 'em (just dreaming, here...)
--Cal Frye, Western Reserve Academy, Hudson, Ohio
"Change is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to
better." --Richard Hooker, 1554-1600
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Perrine
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 11:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Getting Spammed to death...
For what it's worth...
The law in question is in Washington state. The case
involved an Oregon man challenging the law using some
interstate commerce rules (i.e., Washington cannot
regulate business in Oregon or between the two states
as that is the exclusive right of the United States
government.
Most legal scholars believe that the ruling in the
case is fundamentally flawed and is likely to be
reversed on appeal. It is probable that the AG in
Washington will appeal, as this is a very high
profile law (and associated challenge).
--- elp2
> Oregon's fairly fangy anti-spam law just this week
> got struck down as anti-constitutional.
>
> Any more suggestions? vbg
>
> Len
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
