Re: i'm afraid this is a new one for me:

Joachim Feise (
Sat, 20 Nov 1999 12:33:21 -0800

Joachim Feise wrote:
> > Karee Swift wrote:
> >
> >
> > Looks like the French really did spam fork. They didn't include this:
> > Under Bill s. 1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress
> > this letter cannot be considered spam as long as we include
> > contact information and a removal link.
> >
> > this was attached to one of the many things that float into my email box. Amazing enough, Congress won't consider
> > this spam and they have the legal bill to prove it. Anyone aware this passed?
> I knew that this is law in CA (California Code 17538.4,
> I researched it because I got junk faxes, and that is actually legal as long as they
> include a phone #:
> << (1) In the case of a fax, that person or entity establishes a
> toll-free telephone number that a recipient of the unsolicited faxed
> documents may call to notify the sender not to fax the recipient any
> further unsolicited documents.
> (2) In the case of e-mail, that person or entity establishes a
> toll-free telephone number or valid sender operated return e-mail
> address that the recipient of the unsolicited documents may call or
> e-mail to notify the sender not to e-mail any further unsolicited
> documents.
> >>
> I vaguely remember reading about a proposed bill like this in Congress, but I wasn't
> aware that they passed anything. And a search at reveals
> that these spammers are just lying anyway (what did you expect):
> Bill S.1618 is the "Medicare Wellness Act of 1999", introduced by the 106th Congress.
> There is nothing at all in there about spam.
> -JoeF

Oops. I should have searched the 105th Congress.
There actually is a bill like that. It was passed by the Senate only, but not
by the House. So it is NOT law at this point.