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

[Michael T. Halligan]

On Oct 22, 2007, at 6:09 PM, Rick Moen wrote:

> 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.



*Yawn*