On The Insider: Susan Boyle Makes History with Album
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 17 of 61:
Next »
« Previous
Where in the story does it say anything about the UN?
Pay the UN a penny FOR WHAT? Why in the name of all things ZDNET would you want to? IF there is to be a penny tax why not pay it to the state govs or (shudder) to the United States gov.

A penny tax won't accomplish a damn thing but putting more of my hard earned money into the government coffers. The postal service is near bankrupt because the money collected is not kept in the postal organization and you want to tax e-mail. That is just plain stupid. Spammers spoof all the time. How would you feel if they spoofed your addy as the sender and you got a bill for several thousand dollars? Those funds would be immediately diverted too more important projects like protecting the green snot fish in the Nosefunk River instead of hunting down and killing spammers.

And while I am at it why would you want to give a "world" government any control of anything that has to do with the United States?
Posted by: Squawkbox   Posted on: 12/15/04 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

Suspicious basis  S.Howard-Sarin ZDNet Moderator | 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

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

SmartPlanet

Click Here