On Thu, 9 Feb 1995, Dan Zerkle wrote:
 
>     The most just thing to then do would be to have each person e-mail
>     in a request for a packet, but to a ficticious address.  This will
>     assure that the cost of reaching actual potential clients will be
>     very high because of all the packets they mail to non-clients.  With
>     the fictitious addresses, they will know that these were not
>     received instead of thinking that they were successful because
>     they got so many responses.
 
Hmm, you may be liable for mail fraud with this, I don't really know,
but its a possibility (I never trust gov. agencies further than I can
throw them).
 
I do like the idea of a listowners' coalition/union/whatever to present a
united front to spammers (actually, I prefer the elder term of shotgunning
over spamming, but the later seems to have won out).  In previous postings
I've hinted at a possible avenue of attack, in that many states prohibit
the use of state property for private financial gain, but no one has
seemed interested.
 
Would need a really good lawyer.  There are some these days who specialize
in telecommunication law.  Might want to sound out the various legal
lists to see if anyone wants to take it on for a minimal fee, just to
defend the principle (and get name attached to the decision, big plus
if the victor).
 
       Douglas Winship   Hays County, Texas  [log in to unmask]
                    Secondary AUTOCAT Listowner