one-to-many messaging

[Roland Perry]

In article <036301c897ef$fda906b0$1601010a@neos.tv>, Tom Thomson
<cmt@btinternet.com> writes

>> >A remarkable question.  Are you really asking how the sender knows
>> >he is not authorised to place innaccurate dat on my computer when I
>> >visit someone elses website?
>>
>> It's all about persuading a jury that something unauthorised has
>>caused  harm. Why did you accept the information if you didn't want
>>it, and what  loss have you sustained (from the alleged subsequent
>>'unreliability')?
>
>No, it isn't, it's about what's on the face of the statute - the message
>which occasioned your ridiculous question made that absolutely clear by
>saying

The words on the face of the statute are a starting point, but what
people can be successfully prosecuted for evolves from that. The classic
example is the apparent need for the TWOC offence for car "theft".

>> It may not be
>> something the CPS is willing to attempt to convince a jury about and
>> it's probably a waste of time my trying to convince you about it, but
>> it is nevertheless extremely clear in the words in the statute.
>
>That is the sentence immediately following what you quoted, and your new
>post perhaps suggests that you chopped the quotation in mid-paragraph
>precisely to avoid including that sentence.

It would help if you hadn't top-posted, it destroys the natural flow.

>> If you can't persuade me, you have no hope with a jury.
>
>I think I might have a better chance with a jury - they won't have a
>bunch of nonsensical preconceptions  (the jury won't think "port numbers
>are traffic data", for example).

But it's so easy to persuade them it is. Assuming of course you can get
the point over that port numbers identify which destination machine is
required to service the request - after which it easily follows that the
port number is part of the information required to deliver the message
to the right server.

>> After all, a high percentage of the spam I receive  seems to qualify
>>under unreliability[1], and all of it modifies data on  my PC; but no-
>>one cares.
>
>And there we don't agree, I don't for a moment believe that most spam is
>intended to damage your machine

Not even the spam that's carrying a virus? Or the phishing ones, which
seem to me to be exactly as much about forgery and placing inaccurate
data on my PC. [No, my Paypal account hasn't been closed, you liar].

>I use heavy filters

Maybe you should do the same for cookies?
-- 
Roland Perry