Anti-Spam Legislation In Effect 22
MikeyMars writes "CNN is reporting that the FCC has put out a list of domain names that could potentially be fined $11,000 dollars if they continue to send unsolicited text messages to cell phone users."
misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Re:misleading (Score:1, Redundant)
I guess not everyone read "per violation" as "per illegal email" or "per offense" (i.e. per violation of the law to which TFA is referring).
If you were clearifying the text above, well...I couldn't find the where it said total at all
I guess I'm still having rendering problems
Not sure if I'm reading this right... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not sure if I'm reading this right... (Score:1)
Re:Not sure if I'm reading this right... (Score:2)
Good cause (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not like that 11,000 a pop is going for a good cause, anyhow...
Re:Good cause (Score:1)
Re:Good cause (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares? The point is, it's coming FROM a BAD cause.
Plus, it makes it worthwhile from the perspective that a bunch of people spent a bunch of time on taxpayer dollars towards coming up with and enforcing these rules -- now that money is getting paid back, and then some.
unclear (Score:3, Informative)
The article is rather unclear. The main paragraph is:
The Federal Communications Commission on Monday published a list of domain names to which telemarketers may not send e-mail without permission from cell phone subscribers.
So, this would make it illegal for people to spam phonenumber@cingular.com (or whatever), it appears, which makes a lot of sense, as many cellular providers are on that list of domains.
Then it goes on to say "The Federal Communications Commission on Monday published a list of domain names to which telemarketers may not send e-mail without permission from cell phone subscribers.", which implies that cingular.com (as well as all the other listed sites are the ones doing the spamming. So, which is it?
Re:unclear (Score:2)
Re:unclear (Score:1)
Re:unclear (Score:1)
You quote the same exact phrase (in italics) but have trouble understanding it one time and not the other.
Please understand the phrase, "to which telemarketers". The listed domains are not the ones sending the e-mail, they are the ones TO WHICH it is being illicitly (illegally) sent TO. If you continue past the headline and RTFA, you'll see it seems as though the listed domains will be held responsible for allowing the e-mails to be transmitted (think pass through). I believe th
Re:unclear (Score:4, Informative)
What's going on AND Hotmail Spammers (Score:2, Insightful)
Brilliant, txt format! update your hosts file!!111 (Score:3, Funny)
If everyone did that, then... well... yey! bye bye spammers, off the face of DNS.
Re:Brilliant, txt format! update your hosts file!! (Score:2)
Re:List has high count of SMS messaging systems (Score:1)
I'm beginning to understand why this list is moving so slowly...
you have it totally wrong. (Score:2, Informative)
If spammers send email TO these domains they will get fined 11k, not if they send them from those domains.
Blah, yet another story slashdot mangled, does noone proofread stories before they go out, or are all the moderators too busy tripping over each other to get the moderator equivlent of "first post".
Lets clear this up (Score:3)
I have yet to recieve a spam text message and I have had a verizon txt account for a few years now.
The FTC is basically making a do-not-spam list to protect email linked txt message systems on mobile phone provider networks.
Frankly, the scum that would actually spam someone's phone deserve to be tracked down and executed.
Spam, one more reason to hate Floridians.