On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, jim bell wrote:
But it does, in fact. It costs you the effort to look at it (and
An irrelevant amount. The reality is that the cost of filtering physical spam is trivial. It normaly takes me less than 10 second to get the trash in the trash can. Sine I'm going to spend that effort anyway to get the mail I do want the cost is irrelevant. Where e-spam differs from physical spam is that physical spammers send me one copy whereas e-spam usualy means many copies. The real problem with e-spam isn't the cost to filter it but to get rid of it, there isn't a natural limit on e-spam like physical spam. What needs to happen is that instead of spammers adding you to a list and then you have to take extra action to get off (this is where the cost to me comes in, not analogous to physical mail at all really) they would send the note once and then include instructions on how to join if interested. Unfortunately spammers require a large distribution count in order for the minute percentange of interested responants can be advised of its existance. Spammers have a right to send out spam, they don't have a right to bury the recipient in it. It's harrasment and theft of service (my time and effort). ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------