On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Clint Hepner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:39:32PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress
> > this letter cannot be considered "spam" as long as we include:
> > 1) contact information (see above); and,
> > 2) the way to be removed from future mailings (see below).
> >
> > To be removed from this list, please mail to:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'remove' in
> > subject line and you will be removed from our list.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In case anyone is interested, "s.1618 Title III" also says the contact
> information must appear at the beginning of the message.
> A technicality, yes.
>
> But more importantly, this was only passed by the Senate; I believe
> the House's corresponding bill ( HR 3888 ) explicitly refrained from
> making any distinction. No law was ever passed.
>
> So legally, it's still spam.
>
> I would e-mail earthlink.net, but I don't know the procedure for mailing
> lists; can list recipients respond, or is it up to the list maintainer to complain?
>
>
I think we should all respond; I think that spamming a mailing list is
VERY different from spam a list of e-mail addresses, and maybe Earthlink
would soon figure that out...
Just my opinion :)
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
pygtk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk
