CDR: Re: AT&T signs bulk hosting contract with spammers

[Jim Choate]

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 at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------