🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct05.084013.24430@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>Talk about over-reaction.  I am quite certain that the number of
>annoyed replies and bad publicity they got will be more than enough
>to educate and punish them for sending this mail.

...like most other Usenet/Internet infractions, they're getting the standard
punishment: massive flaming.

>Myself, I am 100% in favour of electronic junk mail replacing the
>vast gobs of dead trees that land in my physical mailbox every day.
>Once we lay down the patterns so that proper headers are placed on
>the junk mail, then it's far better.  My computer can screen my junk
>mail before I see it, something that doesn't happen on paper.

This is exactly why junk email will never replace junk paper mail: junk email
can be screened so that the recipient never sees a single trace of it, while
paper junk mail will at least be glanced at.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)