ROBERT DAY <Robert_at_rob99.demon.co.uk> WROTE:
> "Under Bill S.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S.
> Congress this message can't be considered Spam as long
> as there includes a way to be removed. To be removed
> from future mailings, simply respond to
> remove_at_gnetoffice.com with "REMOVE" in the subject
> line."
>
> You folks in the USA, please tell me if this can be
> true?
Two things that aggrivate me:
1) "this message can't be considered Spam" is horribly
inaccurate. It should read "this message can't be
considered ILLEGAL," which is a very big difference.
Spam is spam, and the government can't change
definitions by passing a bill. Small pet peeve of
mine, as you can tell!
2) "Under Bill S.1618 TITLE III" -- anyone familiar
with the US system of law would know a BILL has no
authority or validity until it is signed into law (it
has to go through a few loads of checks and balances
first). While it may be possible or even probable it
will be signed into law... it hasn't yet.
Essentially, the paragraph means just about as much as
those unsolicited messages you get that say:
"This is not spam! You signed up for this newsletter
at my llama hearding site at
http://2939481233828134.net/"
Jim Reardon <jim_at_amusive.com> 815-744-3119
what do you want for free? http://www.freecenter.com/
free forums, polls, and more! http://www.sitegadgets.com/?sig
Received on Tue Nov 28 2000 - 13:22:00 CST
