Differences between current version and previous revision of LegislatingAgainstSpam.
Other diffs: Previous Major Revision, Previous Author, or view the Annotated Edit History
| Newer page: | version 29 | Last edited on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 4:12:44 pm | by MatthiasDallmeier | |
| Older page: | version 28 | Last edited on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 4:07:03 pm | by MatthiasDallmeier | Revert |
@@ -80,8 +80,10 @@
PerryLorier: It is not the content of the emails which is a problem, it is the number of them that cause the issue. Waking up and finding another 50 emails that are irrelevant to me if they are commercial in nature or not is my problem.
MatthewBrowne: No exceptions. Like Perry says, the content of the messages does not matter.
+
+MatthiasDallmeier: No exceptions. And this should be extended to cover phone calls as well.
!! 8. Should the legislation extend to coverage of acts done overseas? If so, what acts should be covered?
zcat(1); 'follow the money' - If the the spam benefits a New Zealand 'entity', it should make no difference that they hired some kid in Romania to send their mail via hacked Chinese servers. The same applies if a New Zealander organises the spamming on behalf of an overseas client. And I personally feel that it should also apply if a New Zealander, through lack of appropriate care and computer maintenence, allows their computer to become a 'spam relay' for someone else..
