On or About 22 May 97 at 15:25, Greg Broiles wrote:

Both of the anti-spam bills that I've seen (CAUCE and Murkowski's) are poorly drafted - they're both overbroad and underinclusive. I don't think they're necessarily constitutionally "overbroad", but they haven't been written by people with a good understanding of the technical issues.

As I read both bills, they'll prohibit behavior pretty universally considered legitimate - e.g., including a link to a web site in your .signature which happens to sell a product or service, for example.

This is really going too far!!! I was told, when I first got on-line, that this was a "polite" way to get your product or service out there, without spamming. By posting on-topic replies to usenet and high traffic mailing lists, like this one... Shit, I hate this "one bad kid gets the rest of the class in trouble" mentality. I am really pissed at this whole issue and the goverment trying to get it's grubby paws on the net any way they can! I am also irked at the public's desire for this government intervention.

I think it'd make more sense to solve this problem technically, and/or carefully think about the legal framework appropriate for governing the flow of data between computers. (There are also sticky First Amendment issues here.)

You got that right.

Ugh.

Arrrrgh. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: (408) 259-2795