On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Greg Newby wrote:
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.
Many people under-state the cost of bulk (paper) mail in this way. In fact, the cost is far greater, especially in use of natural resources.
I may underestimate the cost to the originator but the cost to me for filtering a dozen or so envelopes and paper flyers per day is nil. All your examples are costs to the originator and not to me. I pay for the pickup of my trash which contains the physical spam. Trivial percentage. The cost of cutting the tree down, delivery, etc. as detailed in your examples are costs that are incurred by the sender through the fees they pay to bring the product together and distribute it. I'm all for making that expensive. However, charging for email means everyone pays. Making it so that spammers may only send you one piece of email makes the cost of doing business theirs and doesn't involve me the recipient. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------