|
It has been very popular to add a clause to spam mail which refers
to Bill S.1618, section 301 or similar. This Bill was actually a
law proposal, but - luckily - was never accepted into law. The Bill
died in the House of Representatives. If you're interested, the
complete text is here. Moreover, the proposal was for the Senate of the U.S., not for institutions such as the 'Base Normalization Congress' or other (official sounding) names. |
Still, without having been actually voted into law, this proposal lent an aura of legitimacy to millions of commercial e-Mails all over the world. There's some irony in the fact that these spammers try to use the laq to protect themselves...
On a sidenote, this proposal, and its clauses are called 'Murkogramas', in allusion to its promotor, Senator Frank Murkowski, and a clear wordplay referring to their contents...
Certainly, references to paragraph (a)(2)(C), and other tricks are impressive. Only in one case, the authors of the mail actually mention that it is a mere proposal.
Using the same philosophy, some companies found a similar Law, which seems to have been passed in Spain, in June 2002, which, though it authorizes the sending of publicity, it does so only if the destinatary previously accepted the reception of this material (eg. by subscription)
I've added a list of examples of these (false) declaration, where you can admire the originality of the distributors of electronic spam, to find variations one a theme.
As always - Don't click on any of the links in a mail containing these advisories. Most of them are just designed to 'harvest' your e-mail address, and then send even more spam.
| (c) John Coppens ON6JC/LW3HAZ |