[discostu]

Go and configure a publicly exposed e-mail server and watch the harddrive get sucked up by spam, watch the processor get pegged trying to process spam, then you'll understand the problem. Spam steals computer resources from every e-mail server in the country. Also it flies around on the internet, the backbone of which was built BY THE GOVERNMENT. Regulation against theft is good, regulation against theft from the government is good. Red herring arguments comparing it to billboards are dumb.

[Holly_P]

the backbone of which was built BY THE GOVERNMENT. Regulation against theft is good, regulation against theft from the government is good.

What's the answer to spammers from other countruies who don't give a rats ass about U.S. Laws?

[fire_eye]

That's the difference between spam and ordinary junk mail - the spammers can eat up resources without having to pay for it.

What's needed is a means by which they can be forced to pay for it. If we pass legislation which enables the restriction of email in general - even as an unintended consequence - we are going to regret it.

Consequently, I'd rather see this handled as a civil matter involving loss of revenue. The Government needs to use its authority to assist ISPs and others in suing spammers to recover lost revenues, etc. - whether they're foreign or domestic. (The U.S. government without question has enough influence with foreign governments to force them to go after spammers outside our borders - if it wants to use it).

But don't expect the rocket scientists in Clowngress to understand any of that (or even care). They'll just seize the opportunity to legislate to expand the power of government to regulate, no matter where, or why - and no matter what the unintended consequences.