-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Chris Santerre writes: > >-----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. My thoughts exactly; I'd say "wait and see" and let's see how many spams start using it. BTW, the definition of "ISP" may not be as heavyweight as you think... ;) > 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* Yeah, it's bizarre. Blame the "legitimate mass mailer" lobby. :( - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFArK3EQTcbUG5Y7woRAhV7AJ9UU8lvXnE7z3LWapCfgmUWXs9KTACfZF2g SJWWKBH3KLcjN72UqQZtMrg= =e8tn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
