Suspicious basis
S.Howard-Sarin  | 12/15/04
|
 
That is probably the safest way to do it.
doe_z | 12/15/04
|
|
Had to happen
Roger Ramjet | 12/15/04
|
|
If you do not know where your email is going
Squawkbox | 12/15/04
|
|
"no way for a person sending e-mail to know where the e-mail is going"???
James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
|
|
...then you shouldn't be sending it.
Jomo_z | 12/18/04
|
|
How does this differ from fax and telemarketing spam?
dvarona | 12/15/04
|
|
The stupidity of judges in the Internet Age...
BitTwiddler | 12/15/04
|
|
The stupidy of posters in any age.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
|
|
I Wholeheartedly agree
Roger Ramjet | 12/16/04
|
Well, technically,
rapson | 12/16/04
|
|
That's a very real possiblity
voska | 12/15/04
|
|
Spam is simple
ONEstar | 12/15/04
|
|
The Judge is RIGHT
RobertoSalazar | 12/15/04
|
|
The judge May be right, but you are WRONG!
Mack DaNife | 12/15/04
|
|
I'm Already Paying Enough To That Traitor Bush
itanalyst | 12/15/04
|
|
Where in the story does it say anything about the UN?
Squawkbox | 12/15/04
|
|
If you can get Junk Mail you can get Junk eMail
Kerensky97 | 12/15/04
|
|
Cost is the deciding factor
GregSalts | 12/15/04
|
|
Very well said GregSalts....so the solution is...
Stellardyne | 12/15/04
|
|
GREAT IDEA!!!
itanalyst | 12/15/04
|
|
Here's an enhancement on that, I think.
James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
|
|
Current technology yes...shortly after implementation, no...
Stellardyne | 12/15/04
|
|
Damn.
James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
|
|
One flaw..
Patrick Jones | 12/16/04
|
|
Even better solution.
Letophoro | 12/16/04
|
|
You're absolutely INCORRECT
d_jedi | 12/15/04
|
|
I'm Embarassed To Have Been A Maryland Resident
itanalyst | 12/15/04
|
|
The judge can only rule according to the law.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
|
|
Not exactly...you are forgetting some things...
Stellardyne | 12/15/04
|
|
Obviously your reasons don't change the law.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
|
|
Law is very subjective and based to interpetation...
Stellardyne | 12/15/04
|
|
Sorry you are 100% dead wrong.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
|
|
Not since 7th grade...
Stellardyne | 12/15/04
|
|
Hey, Don't Knock No_Ax
itanalyst | 12/15/04
|
|
Rant tulr, you lose.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
|
|
Rant rule, you lose.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
|
|
Rant Rules
SC-man | 12/17/04
|
|
No Ax, what state do you live in? I mean besides confusion...
Stellardyne | 12/15/04
|
|
Ok, you've used that at least twice today...
BitTwiddler | 12/15/04
|
|
Just because you were psnaked with it, don't start crying.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
|
|
judges judge, that's it
voska | 12/15/04
|
|
Strange as it sounds, I have to agree with No_Ax on this one.
Letophoro | 12/15/04
|
|
Even stranger,,,, you're right.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
|
|
It'd be nice if the article told us what that law said
Michael Kelly | 12/15/04
|
|
The law in breif ...
George Mitchell | 12/15/04
|
|
I agree.
d_jedi | 12/15/04
|
|
The jurisdiction IS federal folks .. No_Ax is correct
George Mitchell | 12/15/04
|
|
If It's Legal For Them To Spam Us....
itanalyst | 12/15/04
|
|
This decision says nothing about the legality or illegality of spam
George Mitchell | 12/15/04
|
|
So the judge won't mind if we forward all our spam to him, right?
James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
|
|
Is anyone sure interstate commerce laws apply here?
James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
|
|
Obviously the judge is. I'm betting he knows more law than you.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
|
|
Uh... ok
James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
|
|
Sorry...
No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
|
|
LOL! (NT)
James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
|
|
All I'm saying is that the judge could have done more...
Stellardyne | 12/15/04
|
|
NO he can NOT! Judges can NOT ignore the law.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
|
|
This is why we have congress, God help us.
seosamh_z | 12/15/04
|
|
Courts Government on Spammer's side
cyberscan | 12/16/04
|
|
Anti-spam tools now unconstitutional too?
Sunny Jalolly | 12/16/04
|
Doc delivers the scoop on today's enterprise content management, printer maintenance, and all other issues related to document management. It's the DocuMentor Blog.
