Ah, great, next they'll say actually sending goods is "a restriction on
interstate commerce", certainly makes it a lot harder if you ask me. But if
they don't go one way they go the other. Here in Australia we nearly had
laws making ISPs legally responsible for all information passing through
their networks (i.e. if your users look at illegal content it's your fault
for not stopping it - yeah right). And in our schools you can't view view
the cancer council pages cause they say breast.

As with all internet abuse it's a bit of a catch 22. You can't stop internet
abuse without killing the internet basically. The whole reason the internet
took of like it did is because as a wholeit's unmoderated and uncontrolled.
There is no standard (there are standards but they are all optional, nothing
forces you to support HTTP 1.1 (except market demand)). Hence, abuse is
almost unstoppable. You can't stop someone using a fake IP\email address
cause that would require a centralised system. And if the internet were
centralised it would simply fall over.

So all we can do is try and minimise the damage and hope one day the
population will get intelligent enough that they won't think pointless
vandalism is such fun.

Tom.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Willis [mailto:mwillis@FOXINTERNET.NET]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 6:12 AM
To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Blocked email


(Some idjit judge decided recently that the WA state law is
unconstitutional - that being honest on your headers, is too hard of a
restriction on interstate commerce - I expect THAT to be appealed and
the joker who got that judge fooled, to lose.  How hard of a burden is
it to be honest?  YEESH!  Insanity.)

  Mark