>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 5:51 AM >To: Al Danks >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: OT: New Can-Spam rule in effect today > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > > >Al Danks writes: >> >Matt Yackley <sare <at> yackley.org> writes: >> >> > header SUBJ_CANSPAM_SE Subject =~ /SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT/ >> >> The new rule(s) should also look for /SEXUALLY EXPLICIT/ (without the >> hyphen). We've already gotten more of them than with the hyphen. My >> guess is that we will need the rule(s) cover "innocent" >mispellings like >> SEXUALY or EXPLICET. > >FWIW, the law clearly states that the *EXACT* 19-byte ASCII >string must be >used. Anyone dropping hyphens etc. is in violation and can >therefore be >prosecuted ;) > >- --j.
Somehow I missed this new one and didn't know until last night. My question is, prosecuted by who? Doesn't the CANSPAM act make it only ISPs still. I feel this will go the way of the ADV: tag. I'm still dumbfounded that the gov't can't get the laws right. "Don't spam us! But if you do and it is porn, say so in subject. But don't spam us." *sigh* --Chris
