nanog mailing list archives
Re: Spam with no purpose?
From: Chris Adams <cmadams () hiwaay net>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 22:53:51 -0500
Once upon a time, Scott Call <scall () devolution com> said:
Kinda of makes you wonder if AP and the like could go after spammers habeaus style on copyright infringement. Since the spam is a source of revenue, it could be construed as criminal copyright infringement as well as civil....
Why bother with copyright sources; I don't expect I'm giving anyone any ideas, but how much (grammatically correct) text is in Project Gutenberg? -- Chris Adams <cmadams () hiwaay net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Current thread:
- RE: Spam with no purpose?, (continued)
- RE: Spam with no purpose? Michel Py (Mar 31)
- RE: Spam with no purpose? Michel Py (Mar 31)
- Re: Spam with no purpose? Michael . Dillon (Apr 01)
- RE: Spam with no purpose? Michel Py (Apr 01)
- RE: Spam with no purpose? Michel Py (Apr 04)
- RE: Spam with no purpose? Todd Vierling (Apr 05)
- RE: Spam with no purpose? Paul Jakma (Apr 05)
- RE: Spam with no purpose? Michel Py (Apr 05)
- RE: Spam with no purpose? Scott Call (Apr 05)
- RE: Spam with no purpose? Todd Vierling (Apr 05)
- Re: Spam with no purpose? Chris Adams (Apr 05)
- RE: Spam with no purpose? Scott Call (Apr 05)
- RE: Spam with no purpose? Michel Py (Apr 05)
- RE: Spam with no purpose? Paul Jakma (Apr 05)