Patrick,

Not really sure, but I do remember reading something about have valid contact information ameliorating things for the spammer.  I think the requirements included name, address and telephone number.  Don't know if this was ever passed into law.

I think .cz would have been Czechoslovakia, but since that country no longer exists I have no idea.

>>> Patrick Santucci <[log in to unmask]> 07/29/99 02:22PM >>>
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)