This is kinda weird
I found this statement at the end of an email message:
"Under Bill s.1618 Title III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress this mail cannot be considered Spam as long as we include contact information."
I haven't yet taken the time to check to see if that statement is accurate, but for some reason when I saw it, I got the jibblies.
UPDATE: I found this in a PDF at USInfo:
"In the 105th Congress, theHouse and Senate each passed legislation (H.R. 3888, and S. 1618), but no bill ultimately cleared Congress. In the 106th Congress, several UCEbills were introduced.One,H.R. 3113Wilson-Green), passed the House. There was no further action. Several spam bills were introduced in the 107th Congress, but none passed. One, H.R. 718 (Wilson-Green), was reported from the House Energy and Commerce Committee (H.Rept. 107-41, Part I), and the House Judiciary
Committee (H.Rept. 107-41, Part II). The two versions were substantially different. CRS-8 A Senate bill, S. 630 (Burns), was reported (S.Rept. 107-318) from the Senate Commerce Committee. There was no further action.
Congressional Action: 108th Congress
As discussed above, nine bills are currently pending:H.R. 1933 (Lofgren), H.R.
2214 (Burr-Tauzin-Sensenbrenner), H.R. 2515 (Wilson-Green), S. 877 (Burns-
Wyden), S. 1052 (Nelson-FL), and S. 1327 (Corzine) are “opt-out” bills. (H.R. 1933 and S. 1327 have the same title and are similar, but not identical.) S. 563 (Dayton)is a “do not e-mail” bill. S. 1231 (Schumer) combines elements of both approaches. S. 1293 (Hatch) creates criminal penalties for fraudulent e-mail. "
So what's the point of throwing that on the end of a regular email? If I figured out this was bunk in 5 minutes, shouldn't the person sending the email with the dubious message know as well? Is this considered fraud? And wouldn't this flaunt the intent of the proposed law anyway?
"Under Bill s.1618 Title III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress this mail cannot be considered Spam as long as we include contact information."
I haven't yet taken the time to check to see if that statement is accurate, but for some reason when I saw it, I got the jibblies.
UPDATE: I found this in a PDF at USInfo:
"In the 105th Congress, theHouse and Senate each passed legislation (H.R. 3888, and S. 1618), but no bill ultimately cleared Congress. In the 106th Congress, several UCEbills were introduced.One,H.R. 3113Wilson-Green), passed the House. There was no further action. Several spam bills were introduced in the 107th Congress, but none passed. One, H.R. 718 (Wilson-Green), was reported from the House Energy and Commerce Committee (H.Rept. 107-41, Part I), and the House Judiciary
Committee (H.Rept. 107-41, Part II). The two versions were substantially different. CRS-8 A Senate bill, S. 630 (Burns), was reported (S.Rept. 107-318) from the Senate Commerce Committee. There was no further action.
Congressional Action: 108th Congress
As discussed above, nine bills are currently pending:H.R. 1933 (Lofgren), H.R.
2214 (Burr-Tauzin-Sensenbrenner), H.R. 2515 (Wilson-Green), S. 877 (Burns-
Wyden), S. 1052 (Nelson-FL), and S. 1327 (Corzine) are “opt-out” bills. (H.R. 1933 and S. 1327 have the same title and are similar, but not identical.) S. 563 (Dayton)is a “do not e-mail” bill. S. 1231 (Schumer) combines elements of both approaches. S. 1293 (Hatch) creates criminal penalties for fraudulent e-mail. "
So what's the point of throwing that on the end of a regular email? If I figured out this was bunk in 5 minutes, shouldn't the person sending the email with the dubious message know as well? Is this considered fraud? And wouldn't this flaunt the intent of the proposed law anyway?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home