On Mar 21, 2004, at 11:27 PM, LuKreme wrote:
I realise after reading my message as posted that my phrasing was bad. I knew the CAN-SPAM was a real law (thus my use of the "(I) Can Spam" monicker, since it basically gives scumbags a license to spam). What I meant to ask was if the claim to be compliant was itself a indicator or spam (like the old fictions house bill claims of 4 years ago), and if so, how strong.
In one of the hats I wear, I operate commercial mailing lists. The messages we send are compliant with this act, but we don't go out of our way to advertise that fact within the message. Personally, I think by putting that disclaimer, you're effectively saying "yes, we know this is spam and you really don't want it, but we complied with the letter of this little law here, and thus you can't sue us nor have your AG come after us".
Legitimate mail (bulk or otherwise) just doesn't need such disclaimers since the people receiving them will know why they got them.
