HP3000-L Archives

July 1999, Week 5

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Lee Gunter <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lee Gunter <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:39:59 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (47 lines)
'cz', if a country, is probably the Czech Republic.

Lee Gunter





From: Patrick Santucci <[log in to unmask]> on 07/29/99 11:22 AM

Please respond to Patrick Santucci <[log in to unmask]>


To:   [log in to unmask]
cc:    (bcc: Lee Gunter/BCBSO/TBG)
Subject:  [HP3000-L] OT: SPAM - Can this be true?




Looks like it's my week for off-topic posts. :-)

Just got a pretty standard piece of spam offering an investment
newsletter. I was about to hit 'delete' when the tag line caught my eye:

> Under bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress
> this letter can not be considered spam as we include: Contact
> information and a Remove Link.

Is this true? Can they really avoid prosecution just by including a
valid contact e-mail address and an alleged 'remove link', even if the
e-mail headers are bogus? (I don't *know* they are, but I suspect so --
what country is 'cz', anyway?)

To me, *any* unsolicited e-mail is spam. Does Congress have a different
definition? Is this spammer BS or a real loophole?

Patrick
--
Patrick Santucci
Technical Services Analyst
KVI, a division of Seabury & Smith, Inc.
Visit our site! http://www.kvi-ins.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alcohol and calculus don't mix. Never drink and derive.
               ~ Anonymous (but sounds like Wirt Atmar)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2