nanog mailing list archives

Re: identity theft != spam

From: Charles Sprickman <spork () inch com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 21:39:14 -0400 (EDT)


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...

Charles

-C

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

Current thread:

identity theft != spam Randy Bush (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Richard Welty (May 15)
  - Re[2]: identity theft != spam Richard Welty (May 15)
  - Re: identity theft != spam Randy Bush (May 15)
    - Re: identity theft != spam Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam John Payne (May 15)
  - Re: identity theft != spam Daniel Golding (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Chris Horry (May 15)
  - Re: identity theft != spam Randy Bush (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Chris Woodfield (May 15)
  - Re: identity theft != spam Charles Sprickman (May 15)
    - Re: identity theft != spam Vadim Antonov (May 15)
    - Re: identity theft != spam Peter Galbavy (May 16)
    - Re: identity theft != spam steve uurtamo (May 16)
- Re: identity theft != spam Bill Woodcock (May 15)
  - Re: identity theft != spam Bill Woodcock (May 15)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: identity theft != spam Steven M. Bellovin (May 15)