Fighting Spam With A 17th Century Law 344
A reader writes "Here is an interesting article which describes how a law from the year 1610 could make Spam illegal in Australia. The same story in german can be found here." Actually, since the law stems from King James I (the VI, if you are Scottish), as such, could be held British Commonwealth wide.
Created in response to this (Score:5, Funny)
Lords and squires,
Were you aware of the fact that you could increaseth the size of your penis by as much as half a cubit? Come visit the apothecary and essay the new miracle tonic by Dr. Goodfellow! You'll have all the fair maidens screaming, 'Good Knight!'
Half a cubit?!?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Half a cubit?!?!? (Score:4, Funny)
Geez... I always thought a cubit was defined as the distance from a grown man's elbow to his outstretched fingertips. I do know it's commonly accepted to be approximately 18 inches (which converts to about 0.457 meters).
Still... adding on 9 inches could be... painful. Just ask any woman who's had her ovaries jostled by an overeager fellow -- feels a lot like a kick to the goolies for the guys. It'll end the festivities REAL quick.
- "...run screaming for the exits..."
Certainly a very possible reaction -- that, or they nominate the fellow for "Hung Jury." (Don't know what Hung Jury is? Use your imagination, or look it up. Hint: dating for women who like to "live large.")Re:Half a cubit?!?!? (Score:2)
"Forsooth, I was once known as Sir Launcelot, yet after trying this mirackle programme, the fair maidens call me Sir Lotsa-Lance!"
This could get interesting (Score:5, Funny)
Does this really apply? (Score:4, Insightful)
Attorney: yes (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been suggesting this approach for years (but wihout the bungled reporting). When the spam enters your system, it exerts physical dominion over your chattels (the bits, the head mechanism, draws additional power, etc.). Trespass clearly applies, just as when some dolt lifts you windshield wiper to insert an ad.
The reporting is a bit mish-mashed, though: Common Law comes from the courts, yet it reports trespass as coming from a particular king (and it would have to have been a king *and* parliament).
I've always assumed trespass to chattels to be Common Law, not a statute, but I'm not willing to spend a half a day looking it up . . . my guess is that the seminal cases in the courts date to his reign, and possibly were decided by the high court known as "the King's Bench," which followed him about England hearing cases & appeals . .
hawk, esq.
Re:Attorney: yes (Score:2)
If it interferes or tampers with property, it's probably trespass. I've had brand new (that morning) wipers damaged by the insertion of flyers (fliers? I don't think I've ever typed that word before . .
Social convention could imply consent, as in the yellow stickies from UPS--they do no damage, and society is better served with their use. OTOH, if you had a sign up prohibiting posting stickies on your door, it would probably be a trespass--though against real property (the house), not a chattel. (please excuse the occasional ss; I can't type today).
As a first approach, look to potential for harm, consent, and whether society is better off assuming consent.
hawk, esq.
Re:Attorney: yes (Score:2)
Re:Attorney: yes (Score:2)
Re:Littering (Score:2)
This is somewhat OT, but what about the f*cking avon lady. She keeps throwing those idiot catalogues in my driveway. I've already informed this woman that I am not interested in this crap and don't want them on 3 different occasions. What can I do? The cops are not gonna respond to this (and rightly so, they've got more important stuff to do). I've taken to signing her email address (which she puts on the label) up to receive a bunch of newsletters and crap, but I still don't want to see them anymore. If anyone has any ideas, I'd be glad to hear them.
Thanks,
Re:Littering (Score:2)
Re:Does this really apply? (Score:2, Interesting)
Given that, we'll have to see how the case will turn out, but the common law precedence so far has had some problems in applying similar tortious concepts to trespass for computer systems.
Note that this is a classic situation where it is a matter for the government to legislate against, and not something you should litigate in court by relying on dodgy authority from 400 years ago.
Re:Does this really apply? (Score:2)
Open Relays (Score:2)
However, using someone else's mailserver to forward your spam without that person's permission would certainly count as interfering with another's goods and chattels.
Can't we do better? (Score:5, Interesting)
All Merchants (if they were not openly prohibited before) shall have their safe and sure Conduct to depart out of England, to come into England, to tarry in, and go through England, as well by Land as by Water, to buy and sell without any manner of evil Tolts, by the old and rightful Customs, except in Time of War.
See, spammers are merchants selling stuff, but not by the old and rightful Customs, in peacetime. It works, and the stretch is... just as rubbery.
Bring some 1297 smack down on em. It should be just as effective.
Won't work, I'm afraid (Score:2)
Re:Can't we do better? (Score:5, Interesting)
Bring some 1297 smack down on em.
What about some 1780 BC? Hammurabi may well have been anticipating spam in his Code [wsu.edu]:
If a shepherd, without the permission of the owner of the field, and without the knowledge of the owner of the sheep, lets the sheep into a field to graze, then the owner of the field shall harvest his crop, and the shepherd, who had pastured his flock there without permission of the owner of the field, shall pay to the owner twenty gur of corn for every ten gan.
And he was clearly thinking of sys admins who left open email relays when he decreed:
If any one be too lazy to keep his dam in proper condition, and does not so keep it; if then the dam break and all the fields be flooded, then shall he in whose dam the break occurred be sold for money, and the money shall replace the corn which he has caused to be ruined.
"Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us." --Ecclesiastes, 2:9
Re:Can't we do better? (Score:5, Funny)
Lets send this solution to everyone via mass e-mails labeled "MAKE CORN FAST!!!"
Evil Tolts (Score:2)
Now that this thread has pretty much settled the definition of a cubit, any enlightenment on "Tolts" - evil or otherwise?
You must be present to win.
you know very well (Score:4, Insightful)
Just noticed that Earthlink, out one side of their mouth, has "spaminator" prevention tools, then out of the other side, a "mass email marketing tool" you can purchase. Cheez. They probably make $$$ sending spam, then turn around and make $$$ blocking it, just like the phone companies charging a fee for caller-id, then charging a fee for caller-id-blocking.
Re:you know very well (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, IIRC, Federal Law in the US prevents telco's from charging a fee for blocking your caller ID information.
Re:you know very well (Score:2)
Precedent for US? (Score:3, Interesting)
But the line "The law was brought in under King James I, and by extension it can be valid throughout the Commonwealth" intrigues me. Much of the legal system in the US is based on English law, from what I understand, and I believe that we often refer to precedent set by the laws governing the colonies, or England, before the creation of the US.
So, there's even a chance that a good lawyer could make use of this law in the US. I think. Anyone care to comment on this angle?
Re:Precedent for US? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Precedent for US? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Precedent for US? (Score:2)
Whose legal system do you thing the fledgling USA based their system upon?
Like I just wrrote, we took our system of goverment based on the ancient greek society. The greek had this term for such a goverment, it was called a DEMOCRACY. You might do some reading on the subject sometime, or at the very least look it up in the dictonary.
Re:Precedent for US? (Score:3, Informative)
As far as I can recall, the french looked to the early goverment of the USA, and took ideas after the French revolution (the French goverment formed after the USA did). In the end the British were forced to adopt a stronger form of parlament, also after the idea of a congression of representatives, like in ancient Greece, or in the early American goverment. So I have looked at other systems of goverment, thank you.
Like I just wrrote, we took our system of goverment based on the ancient greek society. The greek had this term for such a goverment, it was called a DEMOCRACY. You might do some reading on the subject sometime, or at the very least look it up in the dictonary.
As an expert (as in with a degree in the subject) on ancient Greek history, let me explain a few things to you:
The moral of this story? DON'T GET WORKED UP IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
Anonymous, because I don't need the karma.
Re:Precedent for US? (Score:2)
In responce: What does American system of government have to do with the British, or the French? If anything, you have illustrated my point. America is based on the ancient Greek system of rule, albeit a modified version. Actually you have taken my original point to a whole new low; I was talking about how the old laws of British rule were the basis for the American Revolution. The same class of laws might end up hurting the people in Australia. By people, I mean to say the assholes that use spam as a form of "free speech", and "free expression". Nobody likes spam, but everybody should be free. The issue is not the spam, it is the technologies that allows the spam to exist in the first place.
Re:Precedent for US? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not that this has anything to do with the American government (which, as has also been pointed out--notably in the post you replied to--was based on a modified variant of the Roman republic). How we administer our laws is separate from the body of laws we administer. Except, of course, for those laws that govern the administration of laws. However, given your obvious discomfort with more basic concepts, the idea of meta-laws (and meta-governance) might be a little too esoteric for you.
Which is better? An AC who makes thoughtful, well-written arguments in support of a position, or a registered user who writes complete nonsense and is rude as well? I know which "expert" has more credibility in my book.
Re:Precedent for US? (Score:3, Insightful)
And where is your proof of the "fact" that 17th-century British common law conflicts with modern Australian law? For someone who takes reputation so seriously, you seem to be staking yours on emphatic statements on a subject you seem to know little or nothing about. In fact, you're making a prediction about the outcome of future events--something none of us can know anything about!
Finally, on what basis are you asserting that the parent is not anonymous, but a coward? Are all ACs cowards? Or just the ones that claim some expertise in the field under discussion? Would you be happier if the parent poster made no claim, but simply posted their statements claim-free? None of us can verify each others' credentials in any meaningful way; all we can do is judge the posts on their own merits, indepentently of outside context--the claim is irrelevant, the quality and presentation of the data is all that matters.
The tone of my posts reflects my own judgement of your posts, just as your tone reflects your judgement of the parent.
Re:Precedent for US? (Score:2)
Re:Precedent for US? (Score:3, Informative)
An interesting theory, and one shared by a disturbing number of academics, but ultimately unsupportable. There was no right of revolution in Greece, but our Founders claimed it. Compare the Declaration of Independence with Chapter XIX of Locke's Second Treatise. There was no natural right in Greece, but our Founders claimed it. Compare Jefferson and Locke again.
The ancient Greeks thought commerce was the exclusive domain of slaves and resident aliens, not the work of a gentleman; our Founders promoted it. See John Locke again. The Greeks tolerated no distinction between Church and State; compare the First Amendment with Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration.
The basis of political organization for the Greeks was the polis; it was well understood that too large a citizenry would break down the attachments between citizens and hence civic virtue. The Federalist Papers are quite clear that this was a fatal flaw with the Greek system; an expanded sphere was needed. The Greeks relied on confederations for anything requiring more than a single city; Madison and Hamilton attack this as a recipe for failure. Madison's cure for faction is precisely to break people's attachment to their own local loyalties and tie them to a great state in which most of their fellow citizens are anonymous.
True, we did copy Greek art in our capital. No, wait, the Greeks painted all their stuff in gawdy colors; we copied the Romans. In the architecture. We did not copy their institutions, nor did we copy those of the Greeks. These are the mistakes from which all friends of popular governments recoil, disheartened.
In short, Locke, not Solon or Lycurgus, is the intellectual founder of the the American regime. Of course, seeing as my dissertation is on this, I may be a bit partial.
Re:Precedent for US? (Score:2)
What I "don't actually belive" is that this ancient law in australia will apply in a modern case. However, I do find some humor in what some people define as a "chattels" as defined in the quote from the old law:
The ancient law forbids a person from interfering with the goods and chattels of another person without their consent.
As if to say that a persons mear presence, or the act of speaking to another person can be construed as interferance. Since when do I need your permision to speak with you? Wouldn't the mear act of asking be held as interference?
In the USA, we have laws that prevent the abuse of power, such as this old law might. The idea of "freedom of speech". If a law like that were found on the book in America, it would probably be deleted, instead of used against the people. If the Australian goverment chooses to use this as a precendent, god help the people of Australia.
We all hate spammers, and the law is not the answer. The technologies being used needs to be improved, not the law. The creators of the SMTP system did not take security, or privacy into account when these systesm were first implemented back in the early days of the internet.
Re:Precedent for US? (Score:2)
Re:The US is not England (Score:4, Interesting)
No shit, really?!?
Look. Just because we've formed a new country and disconnected ourselves from England doesn't mean that we don't accept some of her principles of law. I believe, for example, that much of US property law is derived from English law, though I'm having a devil of a time verifying any of this online right now. Which is why I asked if anyone here could comment on it.
No, we are not *bound* by England's laws. We certainly can't point to new laws in the British Commonwealth as precedent for our own. But we grew out of the British system -- our colonial laws were British laws, and our Constitution was written by people who'd grown up accustomed to those laws. It's my understanding that, in cases where current law is unclear or ambiguous, the courts have looked back to pre-colonial laws and practices for prececent.
Sheesh.
Re:The US is not England (Score:4, Interesting)
in cases where current law is unclear or ambiguous, the courts have looked back to pre-colonial laws and practices for prececent.
Supreme Court rulings cite common law all the time, sometime where existing law is ambiguous and sometime to reinforce existing interpretations.
See, for example, WASHINGTON et al. v. GLUCKSBERG et al. [upenn.edu]. In this case, which asserted a 14th Amendment right to assisted suicide, Judge Rehnquist wrote: "More specifically, for over 700 years, the Anglo American common law tradition has punished or otherwise disapproved of both suicide and assisting suicide." He cites a 13th century legal treatise and Blackstone Commentaries from the 18th century.
Justice Scalia, concurring, writes: "We now inquire whether this asserted right has any place in our Nation's traditions. Here ... we are confronted with a consistent and almost universal tradition that has long rejected the asserted right, and continues explicitly to reject it today, even for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. To hold for respondents, we would have to reverse centuries of legal doctrine and practice..."
In effect, he makes an appeal to common law to justify a narrow interpretation of the 14th Amendment instead of broadening it.
Re:The US is not England (Score:3, Interesting)
When this country was formed, the founders based their new laws on their idea of what would be fair and just. Now just by human nature they would be keeping some of the laws that England had, after all they weren't all bad. However, even in these cases they didn't simply copy the old laws into the new books, they weren't that lazy.
Besides, the laws are defined solely on how the courts interpret them. Just because our laws have similar origins does not mean that they have stayed that way. As dynamic as they are, odds are you wouldn't be able to find a single law that is completely identical between the two countries.
Am I the only one who doesn't think this is common sense? (and not trolling)
Re:The US is not England (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The US is not England (Score:2)
Re:The US is not England (Score:2)
>hundred years ago, which means the American >colonies threw off Brittish rule and formed a new
>government,
so far, so good . .
>with new laws and such.
[insert rude buzzer sound here]
The Constitution *explicityly* acknowledges the Common Law. Common Law rullings until some vaguely defined point in the late eighteenth century are quite valid in the U.S., unless overruled/superceded/obsolete/etc.
>We don't worship a queen,
Worship?
We bow our knees to no king--but we're *very* clear which king we're not bowing to
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah right (Score:3, Funny)
What's the penalty, being placed in a stockade? 30 Lashings? Or maybe getting tied up and tossed off the front of a moving ship like pirates used to do?
Re:Yeah right (Score:3, Funny)
Rinse - lather - repeat.
Keel-hauling (Score:2)
That's called keelhauling, by the way. Nasty way to go. The rope is tied to the front of the boat, and by the time you're at the rear, you've been concussed, drowned - not fun.
Re:Yeah right (Score:2)
How would we update that to the internet age? Would the spammer's victims be allowed to hire "designated throwers" by e-mail? 8-)
Re:Yeah right (Score:2)
"Hey spammer! You're receiving this rotten tomato 'cuz you're on our list of people interested in rotten tomatoes! *zingggg-splat*"
"If you don't want your daily hot teen tomato, just type 'i no longer wish to receive my free tomatoes'! *zingggg-splat"
"Pity he's in the stocks and can't reach the keyboard, huh? But if he's too lazy to opt out of the tomato list, it's not my problem! He must have subscribed from somewhere and forgotten about it! *zingggg-splat*"
Off with their HEADS! (Score:2)
It took them over 200 years... (Score:2, Funny)
-Dennis
Re:It took them over 200 years... (Score:2)
Course then again, maybe I should brush up on my Spanish.
Use your brain (Score:2, Insightful)
And guess what, i never get spam in the email account i use for family and friends. Spammers can only send you junk mail if they know your address, so use your brain and stop giving it away.
Just as birds will surely shit on the hood of your car, your going to get spam. We dont need arcane laws to prevent something we can all not have to deal with if we just bump up our iq a notch or two.
Re:Use your brain (Score:4, Interesting)
Why should I have to make it harder for people to legitimatley contact me, by for instance obscuring my email address on my web page [well, actually my webpage is down, so don't click that link]?
Anyway, spammers can guess your address even if it has never been published anywhere. Try to set up a mail server acting as a MX for some newly registered
Re:Use your brain (Score:2, Interesting)
Fact is, if you send an email, it usually goes through dozens of systems, each of which could log your address and sell it to a spammer.
Spamish Inquisition? (Score:4, Funny)
Bring me... (Score:2)
Re:Spamish Inquisition? (Score:2)
*BANG*
Nah, that's too good for spammers.
Brings back memories... (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, I remember the first time I had my chattels interfered with. It was at a drive-in...uh...no, wait. I think I misunderstood.
Cool! (Score:5, Funny)
Does that mean that 17th century punishments apply? Beheading? Burning at the stake?
Re:Cool! (Score:3, Funny)
Too kind for them. No, we will deport them to Australia!
related article in alt.sysadmin.recovery (Score:3, Informative)
Must be (Score:2)
or
Spam and ye shall be beheaded.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Old news. (Score:3, Interesting)
Scraping has been uphelp under the Computer Fraud and Tresspass act.
SPAMMERS that get email off of websites, are breaching copyright and terms of use (or at least on my site) on a website with a carefully crafted terms of use.
Now that will work (Score:5, Insightful)
As is mentioned in the article, and as has been shown over and over again, spammers don't have an inch of morals. It would even seem that (at least in Russia) they're usually part of bigger crime syndicates;
So it doesn't really matter whether you can find a law to outlaw spamming. The spammers will never care about such a law. As long as there's money to be made, these kinds of illegal activities will continue. And even if spam would be outlawed, as it doesn't seem like there will be a 100% working filter for spam in the near future, all the spammers have to do is remain somewhat anonymous (or out of jurisdiction) to avoid prosecution.
Sad but true: nothing can be done against them.
Re:Now that will work (Score:2)
True enough, the spammers probably don't give a damn about what pathetic legislation can be brought against them at the moment, especially the hardcore responsible for the bulk of it. More serious legislation to let you go after the spammers, the ISP hosting them and maybe even the luser whose open relays were used would still be a further deterrent though.
That aside, I don't think you can win the fight against spam by going after the spammers directly either, but what is required is to remove their support infrastructure and watch them wither on the vine. If spammer friendly ISPs are more liable for the actions of their customers then we might stand a better chance of reducing spam. My dial up ISP in the UK, Demon Internet [demon.net], has recently institued a policy of pulling the plug on it's customers before notification of the customer if they are, or are being used to, spam. Like any legislation this is a start, and every little helps... the more ISPs that implement similar procedures the better.
Ancient Laws... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ancient Laws... (Score:2)
Re:Ancient Laws... (Score:2)
Re:Ancient Laws... (Score:2)
(0.9.8 has all sort of Javascript options; can you say "goodbye popups"?)
- Sam
We don't want that law applied to email (Score:3, Interesting)
About the law itself (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm... Now if we respect this like they did respect it sounds like,m thislaw meant : "Don't touch my property while I steal yours"...
Examples:
So, my advice would be never to invoke a law that not only has never widely been followed but also is totally dumb: If you interfere with some people's Bell because you want to contact him, he should not sue you.
So, I think this law itself is antisocial even though I agree with the fact we have to kick the spammers.
Your examples are off target... (Score:2)
END COMMUNICATION
Re:Your examples are off target... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:About the law itself (Score:2)
It's not a totally dumb law, but quite sensible. Translated into modern English, it says "don't mess with my stuff without asking first".
Article Disclaimer (Score:2)
Darn it! I've just broken this law by going through 2 web caches and my own computer - thats 3 copies, will I be hanged?
Valid legal theory in U.S. also (Score:5, Informative)
Among the recent notable cases where it was bandied about:
CompuServe, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D. Oh. 1997)
Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 1999 WL 450944 (Cal. Super. April 28, 1999)
eBay, Inc. v. Bidder's Edge, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000)
I haven't looked at the cases to see if it was actually effective in those decisions (though in Intel/Hamidi I seem to remember that it was the linchpin in the final decision)
For those in the know, this ain't exactly news...
A good resource on the topic can be found here [tomwbell.com]
Re:Valid legal theory in U.S. also (Score:2)
The downside with Intel v. Hamidi is that the California appeals court ruling explicitly said that damange was caused by many emails to a targeted business computer. One judge wrote that a person receiving one or two emails on his home computer does not suffer sufficient damage to seek relief for tresspass to chattels.
Re:Valid legal theory in U.S. also (Score:2, Interesting)
Just to hypothesize, I wonder if the same could be said on behalf of the large ISP that handles the "one or two" spam emails on behalf of, say, ten million people.
Re:Valid legal theory in U.S. also (Score:2)
The best part is... (Score:2)
What is the punishment? (Score:2)
laws accomplish nothing (Score:2)
Making spam illegal won't make it go away. A law is just words in a book somewhere, and has no effect unless enforced. And enforcement means finding people and locking them away.
1. do you really want that to happen? REALLY?
2. do you think it's actually possible to find these people and prove them guilty?
3. holy christ man, put a man away for 10 years in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison just for sending you a toner ad? You've got issues.
_Unpopular_ laws accomplish nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
An anti-spam law would NOT fall into this category.
Nobody _really_ hates speed limits, we just disagree on the numbers. Most bust them up at one time or another, despite vigorous enforcement. You can't, however, call them ineffective. Without speed limits, American freeways would look like the Daytona 500.
With the exception of the law-enforcement agecies which are now profiting from it, everyone is either neutral or bitterly opposed to marijuana prohibition. Marijuana use usually happens in private, making it difficult to enforce prohibition against it.
Similarly, sodomy laws are a joke, because the conduct is quite private, and the parties involved are unlikely to report it.
Clearly, laws against behavior which is undertaken in private, particularly by many, consenting, people, and perceived as harmless by the rest are counterproductive, in that they do not stop the "crime" and they _do_ undermine the authority of law. Prostitution statutes fall into this category.
OTOH, nobody objects to laws against murder or sexual abuse of children, because 1) these activities are obviously harmful to their victims and 2) only a tiny minority feels that this is acceptable behavior. Everyone _hates_ spam (except the miniscule fraction who are committing it), it's a completely public activity, and nonconsensual on the part of the recipient and the relays in the middle. Laws against spam (unless totally botched in their construction) would be extremely popular. Everyone would help the law enforcement agencies in the execution of these laws.
And harsh penalties would be appropriate. That spammer isn't sending out _one_ toner ad, he's sending out a million.
The Spam Mafia?! (Score:3, Funny)
If they're part of an international crime syndicate, do you think we could form a little geek syndicate of our own and start a war?
Clarifications (Score:3, Informative)
As others have pointed out, this is a Common Law rule not a Statute, and it's a lot older than 1610, dating back to the 1400s. And it's a civil (torts) matter, not a criminal one.
2. Potentially Applies Throughout the Common Law World.
The most significant cases for this are The UK (except Scotland), the US (except Louisiana), Canada (except possibly Quebec), Australia and New Zealand.
3. Only Applies Where Implied Consent is Negated.
There is clearly implied consent for person-to-person email, even if inadvertantly misdirected. The assertion in this case is that there is no implied consent for spam.
4. This is NOT Going to Cause Paranoid Problem X.
The issue of implied consent, which is dealt with by the courts in remarkably sensible ways, prevents every single absurd outcome suggested here. This will only nail things that society considers abusive practice.
5. You Can't Draw Conclusions of Law Based Solely on a Brief Article in the Popular Press.
It takes other things, like, for example, knowledge of the way courts interpret things, and in the case of Common Law, full knowledge of all the rules involved (which are many) to draw conclusions with any validity.
I wish them luck, in the meantime... (Score:3, Informative)
First, the basics;
Turn off return reciept.
If you have your own domain, do not reply to innocent-sounding email that looks like it was sent to the wrong mail address. 9x out of 10 it wasn't. They are polling for your valid address and just want a response so they know who really should be spammed.
Next, the filters (personal, not network wide -- sorry!);
If it is From:/To:/Cc: a known good address or list, allow it through.
All other mail is shuffled to Spam.
None of these filters will prevent spam from simply being mailed To: you directly. Yet, if you check your spam headers you'll see that only a small sampling actually do this -- they don't want to send out individual messages. It raises thier profile too much.
Also, yes, this will not catch the case where you are added innocently to a mailing list by an unknown sender. That's why I suggest that you do not delete the spam automatically. (I've determined that most folks who do this are people I don't want to talk to anyway, so it kind of works out even if the message isn't delivered.)
Now, if you want to apply more sophisticated filters, go ahead. A blank or missing "To:" field seems to be popular with spammers these days.
For me, I'm not going to bother. I fiddled around with those for about a year four years ago and ended up deleting good mail accidentially and learning more about Procmail -- not that learning about Procmail is a bad thing.
* To prevent someone from figuring out that your address is a good one, ofcourse. Viewing rendered HTML email may, depending on the viewer, give a hint that they have a valid address. Some mail programs do allow you to render the HTML without fetching resources from a remote server. When in doubt, do without.
Re:Only for porn (Score:2)
from the artilce:
and rip-off sales pitches.
The ancient law forbids a person from interfering with the goods and chattels of another person without their consent.
Canada is no longer a commonwealth (Score:3, Flamebait)
What we need to do is have a full counter revolution here in the states and be back under british rule. After that we would have more civil rights.
Its a sad day indeed when an American wishes there were under british rule because they want more personal freedoms. I bet all our countrie's fore fathers would be turning in there graves right now if they knew how much influence hollywood and other corporations have right now. The telecommunications act of 1996, the DMCA, and the wipo act, are just the begining of whats going to happen if you look at how much money has gone into the olitical system in the last 20 years. More money has gone in during the primaries of 2000 then the whole election of 1992! Guess who were the top contributers? MPAA, RIAA, ENron, AT&T, Verizon, GE, health insurance companies, etc. Sick sick sick.
Re:Canada is no longer a commonwealth (Score:2)
We may not have the Union Jack on our flag, but the Queen of England is still our head of state, and still has to sign all of our laws (even if by proxy through the Governor General and Lt. Governors).
You wish you were British???? (Score:4, Informative)
Careful what you ask for... The brits are the worst for privacy issues.
Re:Canada is no longer a commonwealth (Score:3)
They seperated about 25 years ago from the crown.
Part of the rich legacy of common law that Canada inherited from the Crown are:
Writs of assistance [bccla.org]. Senior officers of the RCMP still carry the very same universal search warrants that were one of the causes of the American Revolution [pipex.com].
Cats may not be restrained. To combat the rats that caused the Black Death in London in 1665, Charles II ordered that cats be allowed to roam free. This decree has the force of law in Canada and municipalities cannot issue cat licenses.
Re:Canada is no longer a commonwealth (Score:2)
*ahem [reunioninfo.com]* (Ontario [gov.on.ca])
Re:Canada is no longer a commonwealth (Score:2)
Canada constitution was patriated in 1982. SOURCES OF CANADIAN LAW [justice.gc.ca]
Just one question:
Can *anyone* show me a definition for "patriated" -- because I can't find it *any* dictionary!
Re:Cananda, also (Score:3, Interesting)
If this "law" turns out to be something enacted through common law instead of an act of Parliament, this will apply to most of the US as well (since most state constitutions include English common law, Louisiana being the only exception I know of).
This is probably something worth looking up.
Re:what does the legality matter? (Score:2)
the point wasn't that spam is good and nice, the point was that it doesn't need to be solved by making laws (effectivly at the cost of the population as a whole). fix the system, don't apply a patch
Re:Legality _does_ matter! (Score:2)
Re:what does the legality matter? (Score:2)
Anything that will raise the cost of sending spam will reduce it. Legislation is one way, but it is not the only way. Right now sending spam to one million people costs just as much as sending a single email to your grandmother. Bandwidth needs to become a commodity bought and sold in a market environment. The silly notion of unlimited bandwidth for $xx a month has to stop. The charges would be small enough that it wouldn't affect you or I, but it would cause the spammers to start trimming their lists and properly targeting their recipients.
Re:not in Scotland.. (Score:2)
You are trespassing if you damage property (e.g. fences), poach or enter private grounds of a dwelling or other private property.
The law reasonably only applies if you're moving from point A to point B and have to cross private land to do it.
Although this has been under challenge (Score:2)
Re:clueless journalists strike again (Score:2)
>
> Because spammers obviously check out your personal profile before mailing you.
Of course they don't. The journalist writing the story probably even knows this.
But if the law says Thou Shalt Not Email Minors when spamming pr0n, and a spammer doesn't take reasonable steps not to email minors, such as checking profiles where they exist, then the spammer's broken the law.
The spammer is likely to whine "Well, I can't check all my hotmail.com addresses against the profiles!". If he does so, I hope a judge bitchslaps him into next week.
Because, you see, the spammer can check. At a rate of perhaps 100 or so hotmail.com profiles per hour.
What he can't do is spam all 10 million hotmail.com addresses if he checks. But that should be the spammer's problem, not the recipient's.
When a spammer says he "can't" check, he's really saying he won't check, because it would cut down on the rate at which he could spam. It'd make him have to work. And spammers don't like that.
To which the only response is "Fuck what the spammers want. It's not their network." And we're back to the trespass-to-chattels argument.