spam is wrong. But the net vigilante approach of fighting it is just as wrong. In fact it is worse than spam as it deliberately sets out to disable the email service for at least 255 other users on the server that did not spam.
Go after the spammer, yes. but don't use the terrorist mindset of injuring innocent webmasters to make the point that spam is wrong. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kris Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "POWERHOUSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Swerve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "opensrs discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 10:41 AM Subject: Re: Spamming > POWERHOUSE wrote: > > > > No, I do agree, that Fax blasting is WRONG. That does cost people money. > > Email Does Not. Just like if your are watching > > TV and you see an ad. You have a choice to watch it or NOT. In your Snail > > Mail. You can through the letter away or NOT. > > Mr Powerhouse: > > This argument is weak. Very weak. In fact, it is based on a fallacy. > e-mail does cost people money. I know that as an ISP, we pay traffic > charges, and CPU time on our mailserver is not free either. As a home > user, I pay connect-time charges. What does the spammer pay? Relatively > little in comparison. It is truly the recipient that ends up swallowing > the costs. > > This is opposite other mediums: > Fax: you will likely get it long distance, costing you pennies (especially > if you have a decent fax machine) and costing them about 40 cents per > page. > > Mail: you pay nothing to recieve it, the sender pays about 40 cents per > envelope to send it (plus medium costs) > > TV: you pay relatively little for the cable service when you compare to > the thousands or millions of dollars spent to run a 30 second ad. > > > I just don't think people should be able to cry spam, when 75% of the time, > > they have signed up for something somewhere and > > they just forget about it. I am a webhost. Not a reseller either. I do not > > shut down my clients for spam, unless the person who sent > > it cannot verify that the person in some way either emailed them FIRST, or > > You know how easy it is to manufacture an e-mail message? There's a > reason that they're not quite as rock solid as a handwritten letter in > court. > > > Then it's NOT spam. X being critical factors. Then when people ask to be > > removed, and they are NOT removed, they should get a fine > > or something like that, to keep the "balance" on the internet. I just don't > > think that their should be 1000 different laws as to what constitutes > > Spam. If that is the case, and say you have a customer, who falls under the > > Spam is the common term for UCE or Unsolicited Commercial E-mail. > Dissecting this term, we find that the message must meet three > qualifications: 1, Unsolicited -- user did not request this information; > 2, Commercial -- someone somewhere is going to profit from this; 3, e-mail > -- must come by e-mail. > > If it fits those three categories, it is spam. > > > Just because they are you customer, don't mean you have the right to send > > them email, and that is a what I'm talking about. Their > > That is debatable. A company-client relationship changes it from > unsolicited to solicited. > > > everyones got them and they all stink. I know mine does to a lot of people, > > but I think that is the way it should be. Filters work, but they could also > > filter out GOOD email. Like maybe a domain Expiration warning. Things like > > that. > > > > anyways, Not everyone agrees with what I think, and I don't agree with what > > everyone thinks. Life goes on.... > > Spam is wrong. I'm sure it could be arranged to have all the list members > start forwarding their spam to you, if you want proof... > > -kb > -- > Kris Benson > ABC Communications > +1 (250)612-5270 x204 > +1 (888)235-1174 x204
