I find this *really* annoying

[Christopher Schmidt]

On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 05:18:07PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 05:10:17PM -0400, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
> > > Note that what I meant to say here was that the OFFENDER should be
> > > considered the COMPANY whose PRODUCTS are being advertised.
> > 
> > No, the offender is the group or individual who causes the spam to be
> > sent, not necessarily the company whose products are "advertised".
> 
> Ah, right. THAT's what I meant.  ;-)  The person who is selling
> whatever's being sold in the spam... including figurative uses of the
> word "sell" in the case that nothing is directly being sold for
> money.

The person who is selling whatever is being sold in the spam is not
neccesarily the one who caused it to be sent: if a law like that passed,
competitors would pay spammers to spam the opponents products so they
would get in legal trouble.

(This may happen now: Spamming companies hardly get the best in public
opinion - but I don't know about it personally.)

-- 
Christopher Schmidt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20050408/79c4779b/attachment.bin