spam/avoidance of

From: Don Maslin <donm_at_cts.com>
Date: Thu Jan 31 13:52:15 2002

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Gary Hildebrand wrote:

> "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Geoff Reed wrote:
> > > not so easy fix, your ISP can get on a blacklist from spoofed headers,
> > > there are a handful of the blacklists out there that just add you, without
> > > verifying that the spam did , in fact originate at your domain :(
> >
> > That is true. Some? of the blacklists will blacklist any site that COULD
> > be used, based entirely on whether they have things like reverse DNS
> > configured properly.
> >
> > How about an entire Community College being blacklisted (without ever
> > having been hijacked)? And the "Network Administrator" is apparently not
> > capable of fixing it!
>
>
> I remember when Dalnet blacklisted AOL users for several months. Really
> put the dampers on my IRC activities, as one of my better friends was an
> AOL subscriber.
>
> What really is needed is stronger rules on unsolicited e-mails. Maybe
> something like a no-send list, like we have here in Missouri for
> telemarketers.
>
> Gary Hildebrand

California has a law as cited in the the following paragraphs:

 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is in direct violation of the California
 Business & Professions Code Section 17538.4 which provides that all
 unsolicited commercial e-mail transmissions to California residents
 must meet certain requirements.

 Failure to comply with any of the rules is a criminal offense
 punishable by a $1,000 fine and/or six months imprisonment for each
 offense. In addition, individuals may file civil actions to seek
 injunctive relief.

 ==================
I have no idea how many Californians are aware of it, or have taken
advantage of the penalty part.

                                                 - don
Received on Thu Jan 31 2002 - 13:52:15 GMT