[Balug-Talk] Urgent Linux admin position in Pleasanton,CA

[Rick Moen]

I wrote:

> Oh, and by the way:
>
> > Under Bill s.1618 Title III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress this
> > mail cannot be considered as "spam" as long as we include contact
> > information and a remove link for removal from our mailing list. In
> > order to not be in the recipients-list for this mail, please revert
> > to us with "REMOVE" either in the subject or in the mailbody. Please
> > include all pertinent email addresses. Our apologies for any
> > inconveniences caused by this mail.
> 
> This claim is infamously phony, and is known in anti-spam circles as a
> "Murkogram".  Please see: http://www.jamesshuggins.com/h/tek1/spam_and_law.htm

> 1.  The bill wasn't actually primarily about e-mail.  It was mainly about
>     telephone solicitations and "slamming".
> 2.  To the extent it addressed e-mail spam at all, it would have made
>     some types _illegal_.  It would not have rendered any legal.
> 3.  In any event, the House of Representatives never ratified it, so
>     your claim that Congress passed it is fraudulent.

As a fine point, Sen. Frank Murkowski's (R-AK) Senate bill -- the one 
that died in committee in the House, and thus never became law -- _also_
would have required that unsolicited commercial e-mail include "the
name, physical address, electronic mail address, and telephone number of
the person who initiates transmission of the message".  Our current
poster ("Anshu") seems to have omitted almost all of those required
items -- so the phony "s.1618 Title III" he cited would have condemned
him, had it been an actual law.