On Sat, 9 Dec 2000 07:57:14 -0500 (EST)
murr rhame <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Your analysis looks reasonable at first glance. As you mentioned,
> most spammers aren't sophisticated enough to implement the system
> you propose.
It only requires one who then sells his code to others.
> Also, some states have written anti-spam laws with teeth. See
> www.suespammers.org. One fellow in Colorado claims to have
> collected $13k from spammers (money in hand, not just court
Given the rate at which porn is moving offshor, especially for
indirection sites (cf the Google spams), I don't see this as a long
J C Lawrence email@example.com
---------(*) : http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--