<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://updates.zdnet.com/">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[antispam law Resources | ZDNet]]></title>
	<link><![CDATA[http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/antispam+law.html]]></link>
	<description><![CDATA[White papers, case studies, technical articles, and blog posts relating to antispam law]]></description>
	<s:counts start="0" returned="4" found="4" />
	<language>en-us</language>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Va will rewrite antispam law]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11155-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=62704&messageID=1157632&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Va will rewrite antispam lawGood thing for the spammers......that the Virginia General Assembly won't be meeting again until January barring the possibility of a special session.  Maybe the DMA can send a few extra lobbyists to make sure the issue never comes to a vote at all (after all,...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:38:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/spam.html"><![CDATA[Spam]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/anti-spam.html"><![CDATA[anti-spam]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Va will rewrite antispam law]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://government.zdnet.com/?p=4519]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[No surprise, now that the Supreme Court has rejected Virginia's appeal of a state court ruling that its antispam law is unconstitutional, the Attorney General will rewrite the law and submit it to the General Assembly, the AP reports.      "We are dedicated to protecting all...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Blog posts]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 08:09:11 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/anti-spam.html"><![CDATA[Anti-spam]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/antispam+law.html"><![CDATA[Antispam Law]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/spam.html"><![CDATA[Spam]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/viruses+and+worms.html"><![CDATA[Viruses And Worms]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/security.html"><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/spam+and+phishing.html"><![CDATA[Spam And Phishing]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/richard+koman.html"><![CDATA[Richard Koman]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/richard+koman.html"><![CDATA[Richard Koman]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Va. decision knocking down antispam law strikes blow for First Amendment]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11155-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=51930&messageID=977705&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Va. decision knocking down antispam law strikes blow for First AmendmentYour point still fails...Freedom of expression doesn't extend to having a legislated, forced audience!By the logic you illustrate here, it would be "illegal" or "unconstitutional" to1) not answer the phone or door, if proven that you were home;2) turn away...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:11:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/spam.html"><![CDATA[Spam]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/e-mail.html"><![CDATA[e-mail]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/antispam+law.html"><![CDATA[antispam law]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/anti-spam.html"><![CDATA[anti-spam]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Spammer walks as court says state antispam law is unconsitutional]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11155-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=51937&messageID=977424&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Spammer walks as court says state antispam law is unconsitutionalBad, bad decisionThat court is flat-out wrong.  Spam has nothing to do with the First Amendment.  No one has any "right" to put their email on any server, period.  It has ZERO to do with content.Spammers should pay.Perhaps...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2008 14:29:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/spam.html"><![CDATA[Spam]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/security.html"><![CDATA[SECURITY]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/viruses+and+worms.html"><![CDATA[Viruses and worms]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/publius.html"><![CDATA[Publius]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/spammer.html"><![CDATA[spammer]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/antispam+law.html"><![CDATA[antispam law]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/anti-spam.html"><![CDATA[anti-spam]]></category>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
