> Cost transference.  The cost of Spam via postal mail is borne by the
sender.
> When sent via email, the cost is shouldered by the recipient.
It is not perfect comparation. For both, e-mail and post-mail, recipient
pays the same cost for sorting mail , mail box etc. But, for e-mail, sender
pays nothing, so he has not natural limitations.



> There is a plethora of methodology, and suggestions as to how best to
combat the
> spew, and most of us have accepted the risk of the occasional false
positive,
Don't talk for others. For most people I ever know, such risk is
unacceptable. Any sale person said you
_risk of missing e-mail must be 0_. For me personal, risk of delaying e-mail
due to false positive is OK (I read spam folder once a few days), risk of
missing e-mail is unacceptable. Moreover, spam have useful information
_simetimes_ , so - yes, spammers get their profits, it is well known.

>
> We have resorted to trying to get the customer to bring his own pressure
on his
> provider, we have tried to pressure providers to be more responsive,
> unfortunately with mixed results.  Especially when legislation and rules
are
> formulated that can be at odds with the advertising campaigns of the
providers
Rules helps a little - now I have more spam from sources, which are not
subjected by this rule (Russian spam, for example).
Rules can help if they are applied to those, who order spam, not those who
sends it (I can always find spamming company which is not regulated by this
legislation, not any problem).

On the othere hand, I am not sure, if I want to have 0 level of spam. In
reality, I'd like to limit it to 10 - 20 messages / day, and have this
messages separated from normal messages.




> themselves.
>
> All in all though we are trying to fight the good fight, and believe in
> technology, not legislation.
>
> cheers.
>
> Doug
>
> ======================================
> We can get rid of spam on your domain! , Anti-spam solutions
> http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm
> For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com
> ======================================
>

Reply via email to