The recent law that email must be transparent of its
sender may apply to websites.

It makes it a misdemeanor to send spam with falsified header
information. A
host of other common spamming practices can make a CAN-SPAM violation
an
"aggravated offense," including harvesting, dictionary attacks,
Internet
protocol spoofing, hijacking computers through Trojan horses or
worms, or
using open mail relays for the purpose of sending spam.
[unquote]


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know
is an
infinite set.

bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap


Well this is a shame that websites seem to have been untouched and
unaffected by legal laws as to permit a Wild West anything goes
attitude. Can we say that lawmakers were derelect of duty by
overlooking websites and giving websites some order and stability.
Perhaps websites are next in line to be given rules and regulations and
laws. For I would guess that most "commercial" would be websites and
not emails.

But perhaps the Can Spam Act does apply to websites if a good competent
lawyer makes precedents. I mean, arguing in court that the Can Spam
demands a true legitimate header to pinpoint the source. Arguing thus,
that websites require a true piece of information pinpointing the owner
of the website and how to get a hold of the owner and where the
geographical location of the owner.

So I think that the Can Spam Act of 2003 in the hands of a competent
lawyer should be able to make it apply to websites.

It makes it a misdemeanor to send spam with falsified header
information. A
host of other common spamming practices can make a CAN-SPAM violation
an
"aggravated offense," including harvesting, dictionary attacks,
Internet
protocol spoofing, hijacking computers through Trojan horses or
worms, or
using open mail relays for the purpose of sending spam.
[unquote]


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know
is an
infinite set.

bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Perhaps even hacking of computers for it may involve spyware.

If news.admin has a rule and regulation that posts to the newsgroups
that forge other people are stopped, then I would presume the logic
applies to websites, where we can say that a website titled with a
header "Info on Archimedes Plutonium" and" Facts
about Archimedes Plutonium" are forgies and thus news.admin must
eliminate that website. Being that their rules prompt them to
eliminate
newsgroup forgies.

Archimedes Plutonium

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

I'm almost certain I know what happened here. Notice that the part of the
URL starting with "google.com" looks like a Google search URL, namely

http://google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&scoring=d&as_drrb=q&q=archimedes+plutonium&as_qdr=w&btnG=Google+Search&lr=&sa=N&tab=gw

If you open that URL, you will indeed get 30 results from Google on the
subject of "archimedes plutonium".

Many people are unaware that when you click on a link from a Google search
page, most browsers will tell the destination site not only that you came
from Google, but also WHAT SEARCH TERMS YOU USED. This happens because the
URL of the referring page is passed to the destination server, and
search-engine URLs generally contain the search terms. Certain unscrupulous
individuals use this to harvest search terms, then create dummy web pages
which contain those search terms surrounded by random filler, in the hope of
polluting future search results with links to their site. No human being is
involved in choosing the words to be used.

By posting this URL in a public forum, Mr. Plutonium has probably made
things much worse for himself. Every time someone follows the link he
posted, the server will record that they were searching for "archimedes
plutonium". This will probably lead to the creation of lots more dummy pages
containing those words, and further pollution of search results.

-- Ben