<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: CAN-SPAM Smack Down for Spammers Hiding Behind Affiliates (Email Marketing)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/can-spam-smack-down-for-spammers-hiding-behind-affiliates/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/can-spam-smack-down-for-spammers-hiding-behind-affiliates</link>
	<description>Internet Safety, Windows Updates, Internet News, and More</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: George</title>
		<link>http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/can-spam-smack-down-for-spammers-hiding-behind-affiliates#comment-390933</link>
		<dc:creator>George</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:25:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=500#comment-390933</guid>
		<description>Of you can use an alternative service called urlsmash.com which is a direct competitor to tinyurl with better features. You can choose among many domains as well as your own aliases too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of you can use an alternative service called urlsmash.com which is a direct competitor to tinyurl with better features. You can choose among many domains as well as your own aliases too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timmer</title>
		<link>http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/can-spam-smack-down-for-spammers-hiding-behind-affiliates#comment-1542</link>
		<dc:creator>Timmer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2005 15:42:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=500#comment-1542</guid>
		<description>Wow, a whopping (note sarcasm) $230K fine (of which the FTC only intends to collect spammy's cash on hand, about $20K), and they can't spam "weight-loss products" anymore.  They are, however, allowed to spam anything ELSE they feel like spamming, as long as the spam:  1) doesn't have forged headers; 2) includes an opt-out process; and 3) includes a physical address.  In other words, they're free to spam merrily away as long as the spam is "CAN-SPAM compliant".

Why not title this "FTC says 'Yes, Phoenix Avatar, you CAN-SPAM'"?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, a whopping (note sarcasm) $230K fine (of which the FTC only intends to collect spammy&#8217;s cash on hand, about $20K), and they can&#8217;t spam &#8220;weight-loss products&#8221; anymore.  They are, however, allowed to spam anything ELSE they feel like spamming, as long as the spam:  1) doesn&#8217;t have forged headers; 2) includes an opt-out process; and 3) includes a physical address.  In other words, they&#8217;re free to spam merrily away as long as the spam is &#8220;CAN-SPAM compliant&#8221;.</p>
<p>Why not title this &#8220;FTC says &#8216;Yes, Phoenix Avatar, you CAN-SPAM&#8217;&#8221;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
