🚀 go-pugleaf

Skrev drsoran@nacs.net (Dennis Iannicca) i brevet 
<54p1c9$6ft@tracy.nacs.net>:
>Stan Brown (stbrown@nacs.net) wrote:
>: Action by Congress is needed to extend us protection against junk emails.
>: But I fear that, to some extent, this is something we're going to have to 
>: learn to live with, just like advertisements on the supposedly 
>: commercial-free PBS and NPR.
>
>	No, I won't accept that... PBS and NPR can *choose* whether or not
[...]
>	Spam is bad.  Spam uses bandwidth.  Spam sucks.  I'm on god knows

Of course it's bad; you deleted the part of my article where I said that.

But "bad" does not necessarily equal "illegal". Please note: not 
necessarily. All I was trying to say was that there is another side to 
the idea of using the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1992 against 
spam or junk emails.

Agsin, I urge those interested to read the discussions on 
misc.legal.moderated.


-- 

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio USA
email: stbrown@nacs.net               Web: http://www.nacs.net/~stbrown/