U.S. FTC to fight spam scams
Watson Hormel--see sig
Who knows--if they do enough work, maybe I will only receive a copy of
that stupid pyramid selling scheme with da reportz and with stealth
headers every 2 weeks or so
From the late update of www.nytimes.com for June 12, 1997, 1735 GMT-4
Article From The Associated Press
Federal Regulators Declare War Against Junk E-Mail Fraud
Federal regulators on Thursday put the junk E-Mail industry on
notice
that they will punish businesses that put false information in the
unsolicited mail sent to millions of World Wide Web users.
The Federal Trade Commission also asked the industry to figure out
ways to stem the flood of commercial mail that has clogged the
Internet, making it difficult for users to go online. The FTC said
it
would ask industry groups to supply lists of junk-mail senders to
help
its new drive to detect fraud. Penalties for junk mailers who break
the law could include court injunctions to stop the practice, the
agency said. Repeat offenders could face fines of tens of thousands
of
dollars. ``We will try to go after them and prosecute some fraud,''
FTC commissioner Christine Varney said Thursday, the third day of
the
agency's week-long hearings to address concerns about an array of
online privacy intrusions.
*********************************************************
Actually from Joel Rubin
Reply to: j*m*r*u*b*i*n*@*i*x*.*n*e*t*c*o*m.c*o*m
unless you are you have something wonderful to sell me in which
case, reply to:
/dev/null@[127.0.0.1]
****************************************************************
Michael S. Scheidell
In article <33a0b7d7...@nntp.best.ix.netcom.com>, Watson Hormel--see sig wrote:
>
> Article From The Associated Press
>
>Federal Regulators Declare War Against Junk E-Mail Fraud
>
> Federal regulators on Thursday put the junk E-Mail industry on
>notice
> that they will punish businesses that put false information in the
> unsolicited mail sent to millions of World Wide Web users.
>
> The Federal Trade Commission also asked the industry to figure out
> ways to stem the flood of commercial mail that has clogged the
> Internet, making it difficult for users to go online. The FTC said
>it
> would ask industry groups to supply lists of junk-mail senders to
>help
OK FTC, publish an email address and I'll redirect ALL my spam to you.
(better get several dec alpha 8400's with multiple processors..
these normally go for about 3million$ each, but Im willing to make you a
deal)
ps, you aren't going to want to raise my taxes to pay for all this
monitoring, are you?
CAN ANYONE SAY 'THANKS AGIS/IDCI'?
Thanks for makie sure the government will monitor our email now.
Thanks a whole lot.
--
Fight for free speech and privacy on the internet
Support REP. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH's "Netizens Protection Act of 1997"
http://www.tigerden.com/junkmail
Member C.A.U.C.E <http://www.cauce.org>
Tim_K
> CAN ANYONE SAY 'THANKS AGIS/IDCI'?
> Thanks for makie sure the government will monitor our email now.
>
> Thanks a whole lot.
junkmail over free speech? quite frankly, I don't have anything that
important in e-mail to worry about it.
--
|||||/
( o o )
---------------------oooO---(_)---Ooooo---------------------
/tkni...@tir.com/
ro...@127.0.0.1
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/2507/antispam.html
DNRC: Supreme PooBah of Profeciently Procrastinating.
.oooO
( ) Oooo.
-------------------------\ (------( )---------------------
\_) ) /
(_/
a_jedi...@hotmail.com
well,moron, why dont we make spamming illegal, thus removing the need
to monitor mail. then you report it,and the spammer pays ungodly fines.
the day we no longer care about free speech is the day democracy is
lost.
--
You MAY send responses to messages. You may NOT SEND ME JUNK E-MAIL:
"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets
the
definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is
unlawful
to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By
Sec.227(b)(3)(C),
a violation of the aforementioned Section is punishable by action to
recover
actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each
violation."
(Remove all $$ from my e-mail to respond)
-------------==== Posted via Sexzilla News ====------------------
http://www.sexzilla.com Search, Read, Post to Usenet
-------------==== With A Whole Lot More ====------------------
Tsu Dho Nimh
postm...@nojunk.scheidell.org (Michael S. Scheidell) wrote:
>OK FTC, publish an email address and I'll redirect ALL my spam to you.
See my signature ....
I forward every possible FTC-violating UCE to them.
Callie
Callie @-sign writepage.com http://www.writepage.com
(the real place to e-mail, and humans can figure it out)
I report all junk mail to:
frau...@psinet.com (Internet Fraud Center - general frauds)
enfor...@sec.gov (investment fraud & stock offers)
jcch...@uspis.gov ("send $ to the names" chain letters)
net-...@nocs.insp.irs.gov (MMF senders are possible tax cheats)
Wayne Strang
Er, Callie? I don't see the FTC in your sig. They're at:
pyr...@ftc.gov (for the obvious) and consum...@ftc.gov (for all
others, mostly comments/suggestions I think).
Moi
Scott Brown
a_jedi...@hotmail.com writes:
>well,moron, why dont we make spamming illegal, thus removing the need
>to monitor mail. then you report it,and the spammer pays ungodly fines.
>the day we no longer care about free speech is the day democracy is
>lost.
It's not free. The recipients are paying for it.
We also don't let you put up a billboard on someone else's
property, without their permission and at their expense. Oh
boo hoo, that means your free speech is being taken away.
"Help, help, I'm bein' oppressed!"
Here's a nickel, go buy yourself a clue.
Scott
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Scott Brown | "I may be speaking from Wolfram Research, Inc., |
| sco...@wolfram.com | but that doesn't mean I'm speaking for them." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clifton T. Sharp, Jr.
Michael S. Scheidell wrote:
> CAN ANYONE SAY 'THANKS AGIS/IDCI'?
No! Not even cynically. The words will never come from me.
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Cliff Sharp | If tin whistles are made of tin, what do they make |
| WA9PDM | foghorns out of? --Lonnie Donegan |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Troy Williams
On Sat, 14 Jun 1997 14:36:52 -0400, Tim_K
<Fuc...@you.stupid.spammers> wrote:
>so you'd rather put up with a lagged/clogged internet, full of worthless
>junkmail over free speech? quite frankly, I don't have anything that
>important in e-mail to worry about it.
I know that I am not willing to tolerate it. I can't stand it when I
am getting super super slow speeds while I am trying to download some
files off the 'net, or if I need to download email and the server has
so many folks that are downloading their mail, or so many connections
that my connection is ignored... The thing is that there are too many
spammers that are filling up mailboxes and it is taking so many people
a good bit longer to download all their mail. I am not for spamming in
the first place...
I don't care what the government does to change the fax laws, as long
as my rights aren't violated, and then the spammers are stopped.
You might be a redneck if... You've ever relieved yourself from
a moving vehicle. - Jeff Foxworthy
Please reply in email and the newsgroup.
Troy Williams
On Sat, 14 Jun 1997 23:22:43 -0400, a_jedi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>well,moron, why dont we make spamming illegal, thus removing the need
>to monitor mail. then you report it,and the spammer pays ungodly fines.
>the day we no longer care about free speech is the day democracy is
>lost.
I do think that's a good idea, but then who would we need to report
their mail to in order for them to have to pay the ungodly fines?
Their ISP? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Look at agis.net's policy up until now...
They have let their users do whatever the heck that they please...
Where else can we turn to for this kind of thing?
Troy Williams
On 15 Jun 1997 17:39:26 GMT, sco...@wolfram.com (Scott Brown) wrote:
>a_jedi...@hotmail.com writes:
>
>>well,moron, why dont we make spamming illegal, thus removing the need
>>to monitor mail. then you report it,and the spammer pays ungodly fines.
>>the day we no longer care about free speech is the day democracy is
>>lost.
>
> It's not free. The recipients are paying for it.
That's what the point is, the thing is that not many people are
willing to listen to that fact! Besides, if we go by his plan, the
point that I made in the previous post, where in the world are we
going to send in our complaints? I know that there are some ISPs which
won't budge, just look at how long it's taken agis.net to supposedly
change their policy.. Besides, I am still seeing some spam in my
mailbox and complaints about spam from cyberpromo.com hitting this
group!
> We also don't let you put up a billboard on someone else's
> property, without their permission and at their expense. Oh
> boo hoo, that means your free speech is being taken away.
> "Help, help, I'm bein' oppressed!"
That's true, with that way of thinking, we should have the right to
decide if they want to do some advertising in our private space, then
they should compensate us monetarily. I don't want them to pay the
fines and then the money to go elsewhere. If they have to pay fines, I
want it to go right here in my pocket to pay for the machine upgrades,
and then the different bills that come along, like higher electric
bills for keeping my machine on longer to download their garbage, and
then for the ISP to maybe pay for the service if they decide to go to
a per use basis with the mail server.
> Here's a nickel, go buy yourself a clue.
Shoot, they would just try and pocket the money and go along blind
like they were before.