🚀 go-pugleaf

rcook@dontspambais.com (Rich Cook) wrote:

>Please don't misunderstand me.

I'm not misunderstanding you. You are pro-spam, but you're trying to
straddle the fence. You can't do that. You are either for or against, and
there is no middle ground.

>The other burden is the perceived invasion of privacy.  I assert that your
>mailbox is public. Just like your mail slot in your house, anyone who can
>lick a stamp and spell your address can send you junk mail.

Right... problem is spam comes without stamps.

>Spammers pay for an account and buy Spam Blaster or whatever.  They buy
>your address from sharks who swim Usenet.  They suck.  But their use of
>the Internet is in fact as legitimate from a legal standpoint as anyone's,
>I guess.

You guess wrong. One of the reasons why there never was an incentive to
implement charges per mail, besides the obvious accounting headache, is
that it was supposed to even out.

IOW, the average Netizen would receive as much mail as he or she would
generate. Thus, no point in charging fractions of a penny, when it all
washes out. Spammers upset this balance by generating millions of times
more email than they receive.

>Spam is an irritation, not an emergency as yet.

Tell that to GTE, whose server(s) crashed due to spam.
Tell that to Netcom, whose server(s) crashed due to spam.
Tell that to flowers.com, whose server(s) crashed due to spam.
Tell that to slipnet.com, whose server (only one) crashed due to spam.
Tell that to AOL, who estimates a third of their incoming email is spam.

Please arm yourself with some facts before posting to nanae. Thank you.