Also:  how do you tell the difference between a SPAMmer posting as if
they're from some other address, and my posting from one account but
using another of my personal accounts as my "From" account, so I'll get
replies at my main ISP account (as wanted) instead of at a less-used
address?

There are some good things about having the capability of spoofing your
address, I've been able to "borrow" a friends identity to let him send
e-mail from here, to unsub off a mailing list he wanted off (his home
machine fried it's momboard, he would've overflowed his inbox before the
machine was fixed), capability gives you the ability to do good, as well
as do abusive crud.  Same as with a PIC or any other tool, o'course
<VBG>

  Mark

Brandon, Tom wrote:
> 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

--
I re-ship for small US & overseas businesses, world-wide.
(For private individuals at cost; ask.)