> >What bothers me is that they are proposing new restrictive legislation > >that will be almost impossible to enforce, while ignoring the fact that at > >least 50% of the spam is about fraudulent products and the products could > >be prosecuted on their own merits. (Or lack of same.) In fact, I just > >looked at my current spam collection, I'd say that its closer to 80%. The > >organ enlargers and Viagara fakes could be prosecuted with laws already on > >the books, and spam levels would drop dramatically. > > The FTC (in the US) is already doing just that. They can't go after spam in > general, but they *can* and do go after spam that hawks fraudulent products > etc.... However I suspect that they're woefully understaffed for the job at > hand :)
Perhaps. But take a good look at the spam you collect. Count the number of DIFFERENT companies. You might be surprised at how few there actually are. I'd bet that if you shut down as few as ten of these companies you would cut spam in half. But.... we are now way, way, WAY off topic. -- Jack Gostl [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner. Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission! INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
