> Wolfram v.Kiparski writes: + + What to do? Someone sent me this
> bit of info, and I was wondering if + anyone has heard of this:
> + **** + Unsolicited advertizing e-mail to any computer with an
> attached printer is a + violation of the Telephone Consumer
> Protection Act of 1992 [TCPA]47 USC 227 and + FCC 47 CFR
> 64.1200.
(sorry for the above messy formatting, but it is due to the use of '+'
as an attribution character. Ugh. Bad mail client. Use '>')
> It's a bogus argument. See www.panix.com/~eck/junkmail.html
Not entirely bogus. Both sides of that argument have some merit, and
it hasn't yet been tested in court. (the Arkow case referred to in
your URL was settled out of court)
-Justin
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved