On CBS MoneyWatch: Report: Tiger to Pay Wife $60 Million
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 37 of 67:
Next »
« Previous
And you were expecting...?
"A watered-down, useless piece of legislature crafted to ensure it doesn't upset any of GW's friends in corporate America."

And you were expecting anything else from this Congress? Let's not forget the old joke: if "pro" is the opposite of "con" then the opposite of "progress" is....?

This bill is nothing but smoke and mirrors, designed primarily to prevent states (like, say, California) from getting tough with spammers. Not that it matters in any case, since *all* anti-spam legislation is going to be fundamentally un-enforceable.

The only real solution would be an entirely new e-mail infrastructure that would make it possible to charge some tiny amount (say $.0001) for every e-mail sent. For everone but spammers, this would cost so little as to be irrelevant. For spammers, however, it would quickly add up to significant $$ and act as an economic disincentive to send vast quantities of unsolicited e-mail.

That still wouldn't stop it entirely, of course. Bulk US mail costs money, but I still get tons of the crap every day. But imagine what it would be like if it were virtually free. >:-(
Posted by: the_doge   Posted on: 11/26/03 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Those DMA dollars were well spent, weren't they?  James T. Kirk | 11/21/03
Opt out so what?  toddjones | 11/21/03
So, offer us your 'better' solution.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/21/03
Try this:  James T. Kirk | 11/21/03
No, not too draconian at all.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/21/03
I see nothing wrong with that  master of illusion | 11/21/03
My solution AX Man  the_anti_ax | 11/21/03
Cute nic, I like the flattery.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/03
See PDF file for the solution  jstevens85 | 11/26/03
Tauzin? Figures, he's rated the worst anti-consumer goober there  dicktaurus@... | 11/21/03
Then give us your solution.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/21/03
It's simple...  BitTwiddler | 11/21/03
Opt in from/to who then.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/21/03
BINGO!  rpmyers1 | 11/21/03
Explict Opt-In  Alias KEP | 11/21/03
Re: Explict Opt-In  Octol | 11/22/03
Re: Opt in from/to who then.  Riff Fox | 11/23/03
Well, Duh!  BitTwiddler | 11/24/03
Opt-In  Update victim | 11/24/03
Catch 22  DarbyOhara | 11/24/03
Explicit Opt-In  Alias KEP | 11/24/03
Caatch 22  Update victim | 11/24/03
Everyone will be a politician now  Pcgambit_z | 11/21/03
At Least They Are Talking  ParadigmOdyssey | 11/21/03
Re: At Least  cygnet@... | 11/25/03
In other words...  BitTwiddler | 11/21/03
Actually  ParadigmOdyssey | 11/21/03
Well, not quite...  BitTwiddler | 11/21/03
I'm with YOU  ParadigmOdyssey | 11/21/03
Do Not Solicit Is Courtesy Enough  ParadigmOdyssey | 11/21/03
Non Solicit Must Replace Unsubscribe  ParadigmOdyssey | 11/21/03
Huh?  rpmyers1 | 11/21/03
Because 'do not solicit is courtesy enough.  ParadigmOdyssey | 11/21/03
Still confused  rpmyers1 | 11/21/03
Understand  ParadigmOdyssey | 11/21/03
Opt In is certainly  ParadigmOdyssey | 11/21/03
And you were expecting...?  the_doge | 11/26/03
This is NOT the only real solution . . .  jstevens85 | 11/26/03
one thing to make outlook better  lmaxwell | 11/21/03
You can do that  master of illusion | 11/21/03
Re : you can do that  lmaxwell | 11/23/03
Call me skepticle  master of illusion | 11/21/03
sure  lmaxwell | 11/23/03
Huh?  DarbyOhara | 11/24/03
Can I unsubscribe from TV commercials? No? Why not?  Vily Clay | 11/21/03
Commercial free? Where?  Joe Blow_z | 11/22/03
(NT) Agreed. However, a solution is possible (but not under Bush & Co).  Vily Clay | 11/22/03
I'll one up ya  lmaxwell | 11/23/03
All I can say is...  BitTwiddler | 11/24/03
Opt In/Opt out?  DragonBRockin | 11/22/03
Oh Yes, it does  Franklin_z | 11/22/03
...Myer Read this..  ParadigmOdyssey | 11/22/03
Opt-in v. Opt-out  rpmyers1 | 11/22/03
Either And Or ''No Solicit Should Replace Unsubcribe"  ParadigmOdyssey | 11/22/03
Opt-in  rpmyers1 | 11/23/03
We are lookin at the same reflection  ParadigmOdyssey | 11/23/03
maybe we just need to  lmaxwell | 11/23/03
Sorry, but Double Opt-in is Required  jstevens85 | 11/26/03
the big question is what is spam  lmaxwell | 11/22/03
the big answer is, any sales pitch I didn't request  Neil Parks | 11/26/03
we delt with telemarketing  lmaxwell | 11/23/03
Punishment  numbers987654321 | 11/23/03
Good idea, but...  BitTwiddler | 11/24/03
Punishment, a better idea!  eriksen | 11/25/03
No it won't...  BitTwiddler | 11/24/03
Opt Out is a joke  mewickham | 11/26/03
I Have a Solution:  jstevens85 | 11/26/03

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads