<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">

	<channel>

	<title>&#45; CircleID</title>
	<link>https://www.circleid.com/blogs/</link>
	<description>Postings from  on CircleID</description>
	<dc:language>en</dc:language>
	<dc:rights>Copyright 2026, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
	<dc:date>2026-03-31T21:29:00+00:00</dc:date>

	
	<item>
		<title> 10 Reasons Why Involving Government in Spam Control is a Bad Idea (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts10_reasons_why_involving_government_in_spam_control_is_a_bad_idea</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts10_reasons_why_involving_government_in_spam_control_is_a_bad_idea</link>
		<description><![CDATA[1. Many jurisdictions already have laws which cover abuse of computer systems and networks -- and spam is of course abuse. These laws are only sporadically enforced, however, usually when a sufficiently visible/powerful entity is the aggrieved party. Adding more laws (a) is redundant and (b) does not increase enforcement.  2. Laws are only enforced as law enforcement has resources available. Spam/abuse is not a high priority unless a sufficiently visible/powerful entity makes it so, and those cases are rare. <a href="https://circleid.com/posts10_reasons_why_involving_government_in_spam_control_is_a_bad_idea">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	

	</channel>
</rss>