identity theft != spam
spork at inch.com
Fri May 16 01:39:14 UTC 2003
On Thu, 15 May 2003, Chris Woodfield wrote:
> The flip side is the realization that professional spamming is lucrative
> enough that at least for one person, it was worth the risk of breaking
> the law in order to keep it up.
Don't know about that, he couldn't make the $20K bail...
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 07:14:19PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote:
> > this exemplifies the corporate and legislative attempt to confuse
> > spam == uce with forgery. if they can make the latter the issue,
> > this leaves the way completely clear for unsolicited commercial
> > email from the corporate sector which now fills our post boxes with
> > ground trees.
> > randy
More information about the NANOG