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

[Greg Newby]

On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 09:10:34AM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

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.

As a rabid environmentalist, every time I get a piece of junk mail I
think of it in terms of the trees, oil (for plastic) and other
resources that went into getting it to me.  Lots of this stuff is not
recyclable, and not even safe to burn (I've been seeing lots of
reports lately about pollution due to "backyard burning").

The post office needs to deliver it.  What's the weight of the mass
mail delivered daily, and what is the proportion of fuel and other
consumables that go into getting it from place to place?

I can tell you that even with my greatly sub-typical bulk mail daily
influx, it's at least 1/2 of the weight and volume (junk catalogs
etc. tend to be bigger and heaver than "legitimate" stuff like bills.


As the USPO will tell you, the benefit of junk mail is that it
subsidizes regular mail.  Personally, I would rather pay several times
more for each letter I send and not get any junk mail.


Remember the quote in Garfinkel's Database Nation: "there is no junk
mail, only junk people."  This was from a direct mail marketer, who
stated that he had no interest in sending stuff to anyone but
potential customers.  Well, I've been working for YEARS to tell
everyone that I am a junk person, by this definition, but spammers,
direct mailers and telemarketers persist in contacting me.


> Where e-spam differs from physical spam is that physical spammers send me
> one copy whereas e-spam usualy means many copies.

I get catalogs every month from many places, even AFTER I have
contacted them to ask to be removed from their list.  A short list
includes Home Depot, Performance Cycles, MicroWarehouse and other
companies that should know better.

In many cases, the post office refuses to NOT deliver the stuff,
because it's addressed to "resident."  Unless I want to say that a
message is offensive to me and go through the USPO paperwork, there is
no way to stop this.

> 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.

Of course.  Why not for paper junk mail, too?

I think maybe you haven't actually tried to get off too many paper
junk mail lists.  It is NOT easy, even when you know exactly who is
sending you the stuff.  

> 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).

I only think they have a right in some circumstances, and most spam I
receive doesn't meet the criteria.

- must have an opt-out & maintain a  "do not contact" list
- must participate in the DMA's opt-out list or other 
industry standard resources
- must have a valid Reply-to: address to an attended mailbox

This is minimal, and is completely consistent with regulations for
telemarketers and direct mail services.  The fact with phone and mail
systems is that they are (a) local or national monopolies; (b)
subsidized; and (c) regulated.  Regulations are simply a quid pro quo.
(Yes, we can argue against this sort of subsidy and regulation...for
now, we have it).

Taking the same approach to the electronic domain, which often has the
same qualities (local monopoly, subsidized and regulated), is an easy
decision to make.

  -- Greg