Re: I'll buy... if $$$ are ok and more. Re: [cobalt-users] My mips rpm collection

["Steelhead" <bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

reply imbedded
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Bill Ries-Knight   ***   Stockton, CA.

My views on spam, vindicated by a new law in California.
http://www.ries-knight.net/spam/index.html
.
Sending UCE is like screwing  in church during the sermon.
If you are noticed you are shunned for the rest of your days.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Greg O'Lone" <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 5:20 AM
Subject: RE: I'll buy... if $$$ are ok and more. Re: [cobalt-users] My mips
rpm collection


>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cobalt-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:cobalt-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steelhead
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 4:03 AM
> To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Steelhead
> Subject: Re: I'll buy... if $$$ are ok and more. Re:
> [cobalt-users] My mips rpm collection
>
>
> reply imbedded
> *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
> Bill Ries-Knight   ***   Stockton, CA.
>
> My views on spam, vindicated by a new law in California.
> http://www.ries-knight.net/spam/index.html
> .
> Sending UCE is like screwing  in church during the sermon.
> If you are noticed you are shunned for the rest of your days.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Neat idea, but what happens now is spammers become hit men. I see a
scenario
> like this:
>
> CBA Widgets really, really, really hates a competitor (ABC Widgets), and
> sends out spam on their behalf. Little Timmy at the end of the spamming
line
> HAS all the documentation that "looks" like everything is legit to him, so
> he's in the clear. The company in question, ABC Widgets, never intended to
> send the spam in the first place, especially for the enlargement product
of
> the day! But in the ries-knight.net document, ABC Widgets would be
> subpoena'd to "give-up" said spammer, would know nothing about said
spammer
> or the email sent on their behalf (unless they actually got one and their
> own spam filters didn't happen to catch it), and could be penalized with
the
> whole weight of the California legal system because their response is "We
> didn't know."

The actual document was written while the Legislators were looking to
formulate something.  The basis is the market for spam will dwindle for
"real Companies" if the "Real Company" can be held liable for the campaign.

I would hope that the business in need of marketing will look to legit lists
and methoids as opposed to the common spam we see now.

I see hundreds of Norton Spamads, and the company has done something to
control it... they are now requiring a key to activate the product which
means the sale of "pirated goods" which are the source of most disks being
sold by spam, will diminish rapidly as the next year arrives.


As the Chinese proverb says... A journey of a Thousand Miles begins with one
step.

This is a beginning.

> How does this solve anything?
>
> --
> Greg O'Lone, President
> Stretched Out Software, Inc
> http://www.stretchedout.com
>
>
> _____________________________________
> cobalt-users mailing list
> cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe/unsubscribe, or to SEARCH THE ARCHIVES, go to:
> http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-users
>
>