On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 15:11:30 +0000 Shane Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One simple piece of legislation would slow it down ... if you send it, you > must be able to receive a reply to it. make it illeagel to forge headers and > addresses. If people don't want it they send you an email opting out and if > you don't listen they bounce it back at you. Image some stupid sdpammer > sending 100 million or more spams and having 90% of them bounce back to > his/her server. They would go out of business pretty soon. > there is little point in legislation without enforcement and none(zero, zilch, nix, nada, nought, nowt & nuttin) of the proposed solutions are attractive in the slightest *once* one begins to think of them in this way. just try it as an exercise and you'll soon see just how appalling the consequences of these "good" intentions are - not just for the civil libertarians among us - but for anyone using email. the costs we(the users) would have to bear are frightening. cheers peter *not* in flame mode and *not* particularly innarested in discussing the multifarious ins+outs of any such proposed schemes.
