joel garry wrote:
> On May 31, 11:22 am, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
>> Satish wrote:
>>> Hi Partners,
>>> Note: Under Bill s.1618 Title III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress
>>> this mail cannot be considered Spam as long as we include contact
>>> information and a remove link for removal from our mailing list.
>> ROFLOL!
>>
>> This may come as a shock to you as you are likely an American but the
>> internet is not owned by the United States, your Congress does not
>> legislate here, your President does not sign laws here, and your courts
>> don't legislate here.
>>
>> This is the Internet. And I personally don't give a rip what you and
>> your government decide within your 12 mile economic zone this is
>> comp.databases.oracle.server and you are violating the terms of this
>> group, of google, and you are a spammer.
>>
>> Now please stop with the condescending "Partners" nonsense: We are not
>> your partners and don't want to be.
>>
>> Post your materials at comp.databases.oracle.marketplace as allowed by
>> the charter or you will be treated as a spammer and no one will do
>> business with you.
>
> Note the date: http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-help/2001-October/015762.html
> Note the date: http://www.dhmo.org/spam/
> http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/spam.htm
>
> The 105th congress would have been over 9 years ago. S. 1618 passed
> the Senate on May 12, 1998, it never passed the House and the
> President never signed it, so it is not a law. Senator Frank
> Murkowski added this:
>
> Title III: Spamming - Requires a person who transmits an unsolicited
> commercial electronic mail message to include at the beginning of the
> body of the message: (1) the name, physical address, electronic mail
> address, and telephone number of the person who initiates transmission
> of the message or who created the content of it; and (2) a statement
> that further transmissions of such mail to the recipient by the person
> may be stopped at no cost to the recipient by sending a reply to the
> originating electronic mail address with the word "remove" in the
> subject line.
>
> (Sec. 302) Empowers the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with regulatory
> authority over such unsolicited electronic mail, including authority
> to conduct investigations, commence civil actions against individuals,
> and impose fines, penalties, and injunctions. Requires the FTC to take
> appropriate action within two years after the transmission of such
> electronic mail.
>
> (Sec. 303) Authorizes a State to bring a civil action on behalf of its
> residents against individuals or entities transmitting electronic mail
> in violation of this Act. Requires such State to notify the FTC of
> such action.
>
> (Sec. 304) States that this Act shall not apply to an electronic mail
> transmission by an interactive computer service provider unless the
> provider initiates the transmission or the transmission is not made to
> its own customers.
>
> Authorizes actions by such providers to enforce the sanctions under
> this Act. Requires such action within one year after receipt of the
> transmission.
>
> (Sec. 305) Requires a person who receives from any other person an
> electronic mail message requesting the termination of further
> transmission of commercial electronic mail to cease such transmissions
> to the individual. States that a person who secures a good or service
> from, or otherwise responds electronically to, an offer of unsolicited
> commercial electronic mail shall be deemed to have authorized such
> transmission."
>
> ---
>
> It has been my experience that people who send email with these
> references don't remove, and don't respond to calmly written email,
> with references pointing out that they are lying about spam. So that
> is why I think they are assholes.
>
> jg
> --
> @home.com is bogus.
> Hey Dan, ya know this guy? http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070531/news_1n31spam.html
As a US citizen I must say I deeply resent it when people in this
country, whether their name is George or Satish, take this "we are
the law" attitude toward rationalizing away everything from invading
countries to spamming. Satish is an embarrassment and a self-serving
one at that. Now, as you point out, he is also ethically challenged.
What a surprise. Anyone willing to do business with him should not
be surprised if they discover his ethical lapses extend to their
paychecks or otherwise.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org
Received on Thu May 31 2007 - 17:49:25 CDT
