Attached Link: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050409/D89BI7SO0.html

Thought that I'd share.

9 years for spamming.......whoa.

Many 1st-degree murderers don't do that kind of time.

Wow that is something else thanks for sharing SndCastie

Looks like maybe they wanted to set an example with this one huh? WOW!! Deb

Go figure. Internet clowns, er, clones beware!

It would be great if they could nail all those spammers and send them to jail, but I heard a rumor that there may be some constitutional question involved here that will get the verdict overturned on appeal. Since the guy was allegedly sending out 10 million messages per day thru the AOL servers, he was allegedly able to net $750,000 per month from web-morons, so he's got plenty of cash for his defense team. Too bad Johnny Cochran's ice-skating with Satan right now, because he'd be the perfect guy to lead the defense team.

Isnt that the guy who was really, really spamming the hell out of everyone at the time? 9 years is not much considering the damage he caused. (just my humble my opinion)

If morons could fly... We would live in darkness. Who falls for this kinda crap? I mean...$750,000 per month? That is a lot of morons. Unless...a lot of the money came from his "Clients". Don't you think those who are employing him (supplying him the spam in the first place),should share the guilt? In cases like that,all he is, is the delivery man and the companies providing the content are just paying him to deploy it all. Tom

Unless...a lot of the money came from his "Clients". It does. Generally speaking, spammers make their money from the people who hire them to send the spam. The response rate on spam is fairly low, which is why they have to send out millions and millions of the damned things to get the return rate they promise their clients. And yes, I agree that anyone who pays a spammer is as bad as the spammer. It should be illegal to hire spammers (same way as it's illegal to hire someone to commit a crime). Get rid of the "business people" who are paying them, and the spammers will have little incentive. Add to it the fact that they could get arrested and jailed, and you make spamming even less attractive. bonni

Not to mention those making money off the harvesting and selling of E-mail addresses.Thus providing the spammer with his list. I only supply my real E-mail address to trusted people and sites. For all the rest I' send to a dummy E-mail address that I never check and just delete from time to time. I love seeing the spammer getting in trouble but there are so many other parties involved that are just as guilty. Arresting the spammer is like closing the barn door after the animals have escaped. The problem needs to be addressed at it's source. They should all rot as far as I'm concerned. Especially those "Phishers" and "Scammers" who trick and lure the un-suspecting or technically un-educated. If the same person robbed me at gunpoint,he'd go to jail. What is the difference between that and robbing people via the internet. Then you have situations like ENRON. Don't get me started...lol I like the way Wanda Sykes put it. If someone robs me in an alley,they only get what I have on me at the time. Some "White collard" crooks are out there robbing people of their entire future and get a slap on the wrist. If even that. Tom

and get a slap on the wrist. It doesn't look like that's going to be the case with the ENRON folks. Right now, it looks like former ENRON directors are likely to have the book thrown at them.

Not that this action will do any good for those who have already lost everything. But it might give other company executives something to think about.

I only supply my real E-mail address to trusted people and sites. That's good practice. I actually have a paid spam-filtered account and I give that one out, and then report 100% of the spam I receive. smirk bonni