🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5-hp_zn@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>casper@fwi.uva.nl (Casper H.S. Dik) writes:
>
>>Whether or not it is illegal to send out junk mail, writing a program
>>to collect address from Usenet will only costs a few man-minutes.
>>Sending a mass mailing to those people costs only a few man-minutes as well
>>(and many computer hours). It's too cheap/easy to allow and of
>>questionable legality.
>
>No question regarding the legality in the US.  

This may change, though. 

>Junk email is here to stay
>just like paper email is.  

This is wishful thinking on your part.

>The ONLY effective thing you can do about
>it is to ignore it so that it becomes an unsuccessful marketing technique.

As long as you get business, it doesn't matter how many people get PO'd.

>>How long before we get hundreds of junk mail messages each day? Each
>>from a different address/with a different subject. I've better
>>things to do than collect the few interresting ones from the
>>hundreds of unwanted messages. 
>
>Emminent death of the Internet is at hand.  *sigh*  Hundreds?  Really?
>What an imagination.

Why? The guy starting this sent thousands. Since it's so cheap for the
advertiser to send junk email, I think there is a risk.

>My heart's bleeding.  I believe these same people pay for their news
>including all the bitching that has gone on regarding this topic.  The
>volume of which has grossly exceed that of the junk mail.  

People have the right to decide what they should get. What you are
saying is "You get so much news, so I think you should get some of
my ads too." Really, now.

>I believe
>these underpriviledged people who have to pay also pay for non-junk-but-
>unsolicited mail, 

"Unsolicited" pretty much defines "junk".

>flame response mail, bounced mail and so on.  Like I
>said, my heart bleeds.

Really. You are interested in sending out junk e-mail, aren't you?
Just to put things in perspective. 

Bengt L.
-- 
Bengt Larsson - bengtl@maths.lth.se