BL> Spam *has* to be easy to legislate against, becasue the only
BL> way they can get money back is to send a return address, no
BL> matter which means they use to send it! Making mass-mailings
BL> illegal, would stop it dead.

DD> The "return address" is almost always faked.

 I understand that. It's the same trick as Bill Posters, where the
guy posting bills is paid by the person who actually benefits. It's
easy to see who benefits (it's on the bill, or in this analogy, it's
the return address for Dr Skinback's cock provoker, or whatever) but
the one breaking the law is impossible to find. Bill Poster does it in
the middle of the night and the Spammer uses a false address.

 How hard is it to rewirite the law, so the one who benefits is the
one who pays. The Net simply bans Dr Skinback and his cock provoker
pill. 

 Lawyers argue that a malicious rival could post bills promoting the
"innocent" who benefits. That's a different crime and should be dealt
with under a different law. We already have the Rico laws where the
"victim" has to prove that his property was *not* theproceeds of
crime, and laws where drug *possession* is the crime, or carrying
*concealed* weapons is thecrime... why not make benefitting from Spam,
a crime?

 There is a basic rule that applies to the law, and politicians: if
they say it is impossible to write a law to prevent something that
annoys or threatens us all, then it means they have been paid off by
the bastards who benefit. If a goverment can take a 19-yo kid and send
him to Vietnam to be shot at and killed against his will, then they
can do *anything*!

 Simple... they've been bought off, and probably by Gates.

Regards,
Bob
  


--- BQWK Alpha 0.5