quote:

---

"There's an old argument from those who oppose gun control that if you make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns. Something similar applies here. If you ban forged e-mail addresses, only criminals will forge their e-mail addresses."

"The bill also bans hijacking someone else's computer for the purpose of sending spam, but computer intrusion for any reason is generally illegal, so don't expect that provision to make much of a difference."

"Another ridiculous inclusion is a requirement that spam e-mails contain the sender's postal mail address. Spammers are not going to tell you the location of their homes or offices for fear that some unhappy recipient may pay them an unpleasant visit."

"Finally, the last insultingly bad provision on which Congress has wasted its time--and ours--with this bill, and in fact the entire effort, is the requirement that senders give receivers a means to "opt out" of their lists--that is, tell them you don't want to hear from them ever again. Remember now that this law applies only to senders who are based in the U.S., and that telling the difference between spammers foreign and domestic is no easy task."

"Bush would do e-mail users everywhere a big favor by vetoing this so-called "anti-spam" bill when it reaches his desk. Veto it, and send it back with a handwritten note saying, "Legislating badly is worse than not legislating at all." "

»www.forbes.com/home_asia/2003/11···ech.html

---

said by Zertoss :

---

Should President Bush veto this, would his popularity suddenly soar?

---

said by Zertoss :

---

Should President Bush veto this, would his popularity suddenly soar?

---

said by Zertoss :

---

Should President Bush veto this, would his popularity suddenly soar?

---

said by Flagger :

---

I want less government involvement in my life not more. For the record, I was against the no call list as well.

---

quote:

---

The Direct Marketing Association worked closely with Congress for four years to draft the legislation, and it shows.

---

said by viperpa33s :

---

I also wonder how the ISP's factor in all this. Will the ISP's have to change there tactics on blocking spam since now most spam will classified as legitimate? Will be waiting for the lawsuits to start flying.

---

said by spanhaus.org:

---

Some spammers are claiming that CAN-SPAM not only allows them to spam legally but that it protects them further by also making it illegal for anti-spam systems to block their spam. In fact, while CAN-SPAM is an abysmally poor law, at least it does have some parts which attempt to address the issue of blocking spam, specifically it states that the law does not impact an ISP's ability to determine and enforce its own policies for transmission of email (i.e: through the use of blocklists or whatever means the ISP likes). This means that spammers cannot sue ISPs for blocking the mail they send claiming that the ISP must accept and deliver it based on the Federal law.

---

said by woody7 :

---

They probably don't use e-mail or have their email read for them..................

---