Patrick -

For internet country codes check out
http://www.curtin.edu.au/internet/overview/about/address/all-countries.html

As for this cute little statement which supposedly absolves them of
whatever, I have no idea.

Steve Douglass
BFGoodrich Aerospace

-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Patrick Santucci
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 2:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 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)