On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Jonathan Nichols wrote:
> Did the CAN-SPAM act really take away a citizen's right to sue spammers?
> I'd like to write to this marketing company and have them provide me
> with absolute proof that I signed up for *anything* at all. (they won't
> be able to) I think the whole "
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Bob Rosenberg wrote:
> >(Expect to see a lot more spam with the date set 30 days in the past.)
>
> But wouldn't the Received Headers which show REAL timestamps show
> intent to evade the law by BackDating the Message and thus provide
> evidence for enforcement under the law
At 09:57 -0800 on 01/14/2004, Bart Schaefer wrote about Re: [SAtalk]
The CAN-SPAM act:
The postal address requirement isn't for unsub purposes. CAN-SPAM
specifically requires an Internet-based opt-out mechanism that takes
effect within 10 days and remains usable for 30 days after the
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Jonathan Nichols wrote:
> Did the CAN-SPAM act really take away a citizen's right to sue spammers?
No. It just took away the right to sue under certain state laws that make
explicit reference to commercial email. Actions are still possible under
other sorts of laws.
> I'd
Ok, I just had my first spam with a remove link *AND* what appears to be
a valid address & company name.
As usual, they claim "You have received this notice by request or may
have recently become a member of one of our network websites or simply
signed up for this service. If you no longer wish
