http://www.vix.com/spam/ is the site that lists some of the worst of the spammers.

The list of "Rogue Sites" is at http://www.vix.com/spam/rogues.html

From the newsgroup: ====== Y'all: I've made a fairly comprehensive listing of procmail UCE filters, based largely on the listings published recently to n.a.n-a.e by Sam Trenholme, available on my website. They may be accessed at: http://www.insync.net/~ganymede/rc.spam.pub Note that in order to make these spam filters as "portable" as possible, I've set the action for all of my spam recipes to simply filing the spam into a folder "IN.spam". I've kept each individual filter separate because my personal version of these spam filters does other things with UCE that I receive -- different things for different senders. I've also done an nslookup or dig on as many of the sites sending UCE as I could, and noted when a site is apparently down. I make no warranties of suitability or fitness for any particular purpose -- caveat emptor and all that. How you use these is strictly your responsibility. Cheers Greg R. Broderick

To krisg. Somewhere in win95, the default file association for HTML files is Microsoft Internet Explorer. That's what this sounds like to me. Sounds like you mean that you save a document from the web and when you try to open it afterward, IE opens instead of Netscape. If this is the case, do this: 1.Use Windows Explorer (the one that shows you what you have on your hard drive). 2.Find the file you want to open, or any HTML file. 3.Choose "File"-- "Open With" and follow the menu till you see Netscape. I think that should be it. (I just upgrade to win95 last week).

(1) SENATE PASSES CONGRESS' FIRST EFFORT TO ADDRESS UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL EMAIL On May 12 the Senate passed Congress' first effort to clamp down on senders of unsolicited commercial email messages (UCE), popularly called 'spam' or 'junk email.' CDT believes that this bill is a measured first step in addressing the issue of spam. But there are several issues that need to be addressed before final passage. The current definition of 'unsolicited commercial email,' for example, unconstitutionally restricts unsolicited anonymous political speech. We've communicated this concern to the bill's sponsors, Senators. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Robert G. Torricelli (D-N.J.), and we will work to see that this concern is addressed in the final version of the legislation. For the letter, see: http://www.cdt.org/spam/cdtletter.html We also recognize that in the future additional steps may be needed, depending on how well this first attempt to deal legislatively with the problem works. Sens. Murkowski and Torricelli's bill requires those who send unsolicited commercial email to: ** identify themselves and provide accurate contact information within the body of their email message; ** provide accurate routing information; and ** stop sending email messages upon the request of a recipient. The bill gives several different parties the right to bring legal action against the senders of unsolicited commercial email. Those parties include: ** The Federal Trade Commission, which may fine anyone who violates the law up to $15,000, and may seek an injunction that prohibits the violator from sending more spam;. ** State Attorneys General, who may bring lawsuits on behalf of the residents of their state to get an injunction against the transmission of more unsolicited commercial email, force the sender to comply with the law, and obtain damages and 'other appropriate relief' from the sender for the harm it caused by sending unwanted commercial email; and ** Internet Service Providers who have been harmed by people who use their services to send spam may also bring a lawsuit to get an injunction and to obtain damages and other appropriate relief. ISPs may be awarded up to $15,000 for each violation of the law through the use of their service. The court may also force the violator to pay the ISP's attorney fees, as long as they are reasonable, and court costs. By allowing the courts to shift the cost of a successful lawsuit off ISPs, and onto the shoulders of the spam senders themselves,the bill may encourage more ISPs to pursue spammers. The bill gives the FTC, the State Attorneys General and the Internet service providers the power to enforce the law's provisions. The bill also retains the states' abilities to enact additional legislation or to employ existing consumer protection laws to address unsolicited commercial email. S. 1618 avoids many of the thorny questions regarding speech and Internet service liability raised by earlier proposals. While the bill is only a beginning, CDT believes it will have an impact on the unscrupulous people who are clogging the email system with unwanted messages. This bill won't eliminate unsolicited commercial email, but it will enable individual Internet users and Internet service providers to exercise more control over a problem they have so far found to be almost unworkable. It will ensure that people who send spam will hear back from consumers who don't want to get it. The issue of unsolicited commercial email will remain active in the policy arena. First, the Senate Commerce Committee has tentatively scheduled a hearing on this issue on June 17th. Second, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Unsolicited Commercial Email, which CDT convened last fall at the request of the FTC, is also due to release its report soon. CDT coordinated the drafting of the report, which, as we told Sens. Murkowski and Torricelli, found consensus in a desire to: a) maximize individual email users' control over the information that enters their in-box; b) ensure that costs were not imposed unfairly upon end users, and Internet and online service providers; and c) increase the enforcement of existing FTC regulations and state laws on 'unfair, deceptive and misleading commercial statements' in a way that protects the First Amendment right to free speech. Meanwhile, the text of S. 1618 is available on Sen. Murkowski's Web site, at: http://www.senate.gov/~murkowski/commercialemail/EMailAmendText.html A companion bill, H.R. 3888, was introduced in the House by Rep.Billy Tauzin (R-La.) on May 14. The text is not yet available online.