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

[Jim Choate]

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