>I'm posting this to the vanagon list because unsolicited commercial email
>('spam') is a problem which has affected most folks at one point or another.
>
        Of course it has, but...
>
>If you live in California, you need to call your state's representatives
>on the Telecom subcommittee today, immediately, to tell them that you
>strongly oppose H.R. 3888 which will cause more, not less, spam.
>
...
>As currently written, the bill, written by subcommittee
>chairman W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-Louisiana), would legalize most forms
>of junk e-mail and severely hamper ISP efforts to cut off spammers.
...
>  Rep. Tauzin believes the pro-spam
>portions of the bill are not controversial. The members of his
>committee need to be told differently BY YOU!
>
...
>We need *every* CAUCE member to IMMEDIATELY phone the
>Telecommunications Subcommittee members from your state. It _doesn't_
>matter if you're not in their Congressional District; your input is
>still extremely important.

        I don't particularly like being solicited for political action
        to pass myself off as a member of an organization I don't belong to

>       "...I am from California. I am a member of the Coalition Against
        Unsolicited Commercial Email.  I am calling to OPPOSE the "spam"
        parts of bill H.R.  3888. ..."

        I just love the idea of calling congresscritters and telling them
        that "SPAM IS BAD...kill HR 3888!" ;-)

>Unless they hear from you, they'll never know how bad H.R. 3888 is.

        And neither will *we*...UNLESS CAUCE or someone posts, or provides a
        pointer to the relevant portions of H.R. 3888: The actual CAUCE
        analysis of S1618 and its House equivalent HR3888 is at
        http://www.cauce.org/s1618_hr3888.html

        I just love the idea of calling congresscritters and telling them
        that "SPAM IS BAD...kill HR 3888!" ;-)

        If you feel strongly enough to act, go to Anna Eshoo's home page
        http://www-eshoo.house.gov  and leave her a Webnote decrying HR3888
        and supporting "the Smith Bill" HR1748* instead.
.
        Be forewarned that she represents SiliValley's interests and is on
        record as opposing Internet censorship:

        "...In my view, the government shouldn't be policing computer networks
        such as the Internet and I'm very concerned that such activity
        infringes on every American's First Amendment right to freedom of
        speech..."

        Personally, I believe Tauzin's bill will probably die before it gets
        to the floor of the House...but it doesn't hurt to show support for
        HR1748:

        [* source] http://www.cauce.org/hr1748.html

        Why we [CAUCE] support the Smith Bill:

        The Smith Bill amends the "anti-junk fax" law to include email,
        giving consumers a "private right of action" against spam. A
        private right of action simply means that people can sue the spammer
        for $500, for each piece of unsolicited advertising they receive.

        If the court believes that the spammer "willfully" or "knowingly"
        violated the law, the damages are tripled! (Yes, that's $1500 per
        message!) The junk fax law has worked extremely well, it has survived
        many court challenges, and it has cut the junk fax problem
        off at the knees. We think it will do the same for spam.

        The Smith Bill doesn't depend on tracking down forged email. You
        don't worry about deciphering the trickery and forgery, you go
        directly for the advertiser listed in the ad. If they want your
        money, they have to give you some way to send it to them: 800 number,
        PO Box, or even a web site hosted on an ISP. By ignoring the headers
        and tracking them down via the post office or the phone company, or
        via their Internet Service Provider, you can cut of spam at the real
        source. They can forge all they want, but you'll still be able to
        identify them -- and sue them.

        Because this approach goes after the advertiser directly, you create
        a real disincentive: You make it so high-cost and high-risk that most
        people will be deterred from engaging in the practice. And for those
        who take the risk, there will be hundreds or thousands of recipients
        who will get from $500 to $1500 per piece of spam.

        ...

      OLTECO                         Ari Ollikainen
      P.O. BOX 3688                  Networking Technology and Architecture
      Stanford, CA                   Ari@OLTECO.com
      94309-3688                     415.517.3519