> NetSurfer [firstname.lastname@example.org] wrote:
> >First off laws which allow for the prosecution of businesses which
> >advertise via spam has absolutely *nothing* to do with encryption or
> >anonymity with the exception that the use of falsified headers IN SPAM is
> >treated as the fraud it is.
> So spam sent through anonymous remailers will be totally legal because
> the remailer puts a 'real' email address on the message? Spam from 'real'
> email addresses will be totally legal? Gee, that will really reduce the
> amount of spam I get.
> >Well the law has been in place for a number
> >of years, and has upheld on appeals, and you are still able to practice
> >your freedom of speech (except by sending unsolicited faxes to people) and
> >you still have anonymity
> Duh, that law requires every fax to include a valid telephone number that
> it was sent from. It *bans* fax anonymity. Get a clue sometime.
> >This is simply anti-theft and anti-netabuse legislation. If you are not
> >stealing from people and hijacking other peoples mail servers and network
> >feeds you have nothing to fear.
> Bullshit. Anyone who wants anonymity and privacy on the Net has everything
> to fear from fanatics like you and Mike. If spam is legal when sent through
> anonymous remailers then spammers will just use them. If it's not, then
> anonymous remailers will be shut down completely and utterly, and there
> will be no more anonymity on the Net.
Your error in logic is to assume that anonymous mailers might be financially dependent upon the spammer customer base. If this is true, and they see nothing wrong with that, then they are colluders, so screw them. If it is not true, then they have nothing to fear from spammers getting shut down, and if it really were true, then they would be doing something themselves to prevent spam abuses thru their systems. I think shutting down spammers will force anonymous remailers to evolve into a form that is much more responsible to the end recipient than those at present, which in my mind is a good thing. If they can't adapt, then let the market kill them off.
> >Talk to the owners of the ISP's who have
> >had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just to protect their
> >networks from the criminals and ask them what they think of spamming and
> >about laws to curb it.
> As far as I'm aware, I'm the only person on this list who's had to waste
> days dealing with spammer attacks on his domain. And I'm the one who's
> arguing against rabid, abusive anti-spam laws. You just don't seem to
> have a clue as to what you're asking for.
I haven't argued for laws. I have repeatedly said that I would prefer that the members of the market show some responsibility and start self regulating to limit the abuse. Stop revising my position to suit your argument. Its a bad debate tactic that just makes you look dishonest, kinda like a spammer.
> >I prefer
> >arguments of logic rather than insulting the people I'm carrying on a
> >dialogue with - its much more effective.
> Then give us some logic. Answer some questions. Stop making assertions
> which have no basis in reality. And stop claiming that you're the good
> guys and we're supporting the "evil" spammers, when you're trying to
> enforce a police state on the Net. Erase the anti-spam fanatic memes
> from your head and start dealing with reality.
I can still be pro market and pro freedom while being anti-spammer. Its your stuborn refusal to promote market base solutions or to even acknowledge that spam is a problem that is preventing you from dealing with reality. So you gave up on spam, too bad. I could be as rude as you are and start calling you a quitter, but I won't.....