[dheretic]

I don't care if it's from Sanford Wallace or Mother Theresa. If it's bulk s#it clogging up my inbox, then it's spam.

Some people define a mass-mailing of email to 30 recipients in someone's address book to be spam. I'm trying to make a technical separation so that some stupid AOLer who selects all 70 buddies on their list doesn't get prosecuted.

[Don Joe]

"Some people define a mass-mailing of email to 30 recipients in someone's address book to be spam. I'm trying to make a technical separation so that some stupid AOLer who selects all 70 buddies on their list doesn't get prosecuted."

Frankly this would be a better world if nincompoop AOLers got prosecuted for flushing their toilets in other folks general direction.

ANY "recipient-pay" advertishing is SPAM, and the death penalty itself would be more mercy than these scumbag vermin deserve.

[Bush2000]

You might want to read this before you embarrass yourselves: The Truth About DMCA.

"Even so, not all execrable laws are equally loathsome. A careful look at the DMCA shows that, far from prohibiting all security research, the law does not regulate as many activities as people seem to believe. And if activists hope to assail a law like the DMCA, they'll be taken more seriously if they know what they're talking about.

"The risk that a researcher could go to jail for giving a speech at an academic conference is essentially zero," says Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University and a former prosecutor for the Justice Department. In fact, Kerr says, it makes sense to take opponents' claims about the scope of the copyright law with a grain of salt.

"Opponents of the DMCA want to dramatize its effects, so they want people to believe that the law is incredibly broad," Kerr says. "If the public believes that the DMCA is stopping Professor Felten and other researchers from conducting legitimate research, then that is a major victory for opponents of the law."