🚀 go-pugleaf

Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond <ocl@ic.ac.uk> writes:

> While I totally disagree with the use of the Internet for commercial
> advertising, I cannot understand why some people on the net seem to
> have had such an over-reaction as to send <muchos-flames> back to
> the originator of the email.(abacus et al.) This itself is an
> abuse of networks, especially when sending back the full man pages,
> ie: several megabytes. What a childish behaviour ! Someone somewhere is
> paying for that ! 

Exactly!  That's what is so odious about junk e-mail ... people are
paying to receive it!  This means the people receiving them are subsidizing
100% of the stinker's advertising costs!

I'd bet [for the most part] the people who reacted most strongly were 
probably UUCP sites who pay substantial amounts of money for UUNET or
long-distance costs and *don't* like weasels sending out advertising
that ends up costing the *recipient*.

> I have also received the stuff from abacus@Gwinnett.com . But throughout
> the years I have often received such email from a number of sources; I
> just type d and read the next message. Cheapest way.

According to this thread, large amounts of disturbing traffic (man pages,
etc...) were sent out in retaliation.  This is *no* better than the
junk mail -- but IMHO a flood of "to-the-point" nasty notes directed at 
the perpetrator will (a) educate them, and (b) hopefully prevent future
generations of weasels from doing something similiar.

Oh -- and no, I never received the note from Abacus (and they can thank
their lucky stars for that!  :-) ), and no, I never sent them hate-mail.
But after reading this thread for several days I saw no one mention the 
(very obvious) subsidization issue.

+-----------------------------------------------+
| Steve Frampton - frampton@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca | 
+-----------------------------------------------+