California Tries Spam Ban

Schlemphfer writes "Spammers have likely received their biggest setback yet, when California governor Gray Davis today signed a bill outlawing all unsolicited email sent to and from the state. Two things about this new law stand out: first, it puts the burden on senders to prove that they are sending solicited email. Second, it bans the entire practice of spamming, with no loopholes at all like allowing messages with ADV: in the subject. Keep in mind California has the world's fifth largest economy, and they are planning to enforce the law with fines amounting to $1000 per each piece of spam. This law could be ruinous to spammers when it takes effect January 1st."

Comments

Woohoo!

[Our Man In Redmond]

For purposes of spam, on January 1st my address will change to Redmond, California.

However, prior to January 1st

[Anonymous Coward]

Governor Davis is planning a "Vote No To Recall" spam campaign.

Us Californians Don't Need Spam Anyway...

[The_Rippa]

...our penises, credit ratings, and mortgages are all in tip-top shape as is!

Email spam over.

[clinko]

Now everyone will only have to deal with spam in ICQ, AIM, NewsGroups, MSN, Popup software, Spyware software, and Net Sends.

The Spam companies are going to be RUINED!

spam is ramping up

[bob_jenkins]

I live in California. I got 1276 emails yesterday. One (1) was not spam. Wow, that would be $1,275,000 in penalties due to me alone, just yesterday!

That one, though, was from someone I've never heard of before, asking questions about things discussed on my website. Does that count as solicited or unsolicited?

Re:Can we really enforce this?

[switcha]

I think a zealous group of vigilantes will emerge, and make a killing on hunting down and exposing spammers

How about we compromise and just have:
"a zealous group of vigilantes, killing spammers."?

Re:Can we really enforce this?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's to stop the dishonest from forging e-mail headers and the rest, to fine a company or individual out of existance?

Yes, what is to stop a group of people from getting, oh, say, SCO fined out of existence? Surely, I do not know. That would be a bad thing, though. Faking spam from SCO and getting them fined out of existence. Yes, a bad, naughty thing. Naughty, naughty.

Tastes so nice

[osjedi]

This law could be ruinous to spammers when it takes effect January 1st."

Ruinous to spammers. I love to savor those words. They tickle my tounge as the roll off it so smoothly. I want to say it over and over. Ruinous to spammers. Try it. Say it with me. "Ruinous to spammers". You like that, don't you. :) I knew you would.