There are three SPAM bills before the Virginia Legislature: SB881 - Passed the Senate, sent to the house. Out of house sub-committee with a substitute. Here is the _link_: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=991&typ=bil&val=sb881 HB1714 - Passed both the House and the Senate. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=991&typ=bil&val=hb1714 HB1668 - Passed both the House and the Senate. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=991&typ=bil&val=hb1668 It is significant to note that none of these bills have had a single negative vote, in the House, in the Senate, or in subcommittee. It's also significant to note that both UUNET and PSInet are headquartered in Virginia.

It's also significant to note that both UUNET and PSInet are headquartered in Virginia. Why? PSINet I can understand as they're very anti-spam and would have lent full support to this bill, but UUNet would have been very conspicuous by it's complete silence over this or any anti-spam bill. If UUNet even made half a peep in support of this bill I'll eat my beard. Steve Linford

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=991&typ=bil&val=hb1714 HB 1714 Virginia Computer Crimes Act; electronic mail. Summary as passed House:     Virginia Computer Crimes Act; electronic mail. Amends Virginia's     long-arm statute to establish personal jurisdiction over any     person who transmits or causes the transmission of unsolicited     bulk electronic mail to or through an electronic mail service     provider's computer network located in Virginia, as those terms     are defined in the bill. The bill also (i) expands the definitions     of computer services and without authority and provides a new     definition for electronic mail service provider in the Virginia     Computer Crimes Act; (ii) makes it the crime of computer trespass to     (a) falsify or forge e-mail message transmission information in     connection with unsolicited bulk e-mail and (b) sell, give,     distribute, or possess software whose principal purpose is to     facilitate unsolicited bulk e-mail; (iii) provides that electronic     mail service providers shall not be liable for action they take to     prevent unsolicited bulk email; (iv) provides civil relief to an     injured person, other than an electronic mail service provider, for     actual damages or the lesser of $10 for each unsolicited bulk e-mail     message or $25,000 per day and states that the injured person shall     not have a cause of action against an electronic mail service     provider which merely transmits the e-mail message; (v) provides     civil relief to an injured electronic mail service provider for     actual damages or the greater of $10 for each unsolicited bulk     e-mail message or $25,000 per day; and (vi) cross-references the     Virginia long-arm statute in the Virginia Computer Crimes Act to     ensure the establishment of personal jurisdiction in Virginia's     courts. To me this says HASTA LA VISTA SPAMMERS, SPAM IS DEAD . Steve Linford

It's also significant to note that both UUNET and PSInet are headquartered in Virginia. Why? PSINet I can understand as they're very anti-spam and would have lent full support to this bill, but UUNet would have been very conspicuous by it's complete silence over this or any anti-spam bill. If UUNet even made half a peep in support of this bill I'll eat my beard. Wasn't it Psi whose president was quoted last year as opposing such laws to the point of considering moving out of the state if they're enacted? (Sure wish I could find the story that was in.)