On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:34:37 -0500, Sam Ewalt wrote: > On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 11:48:15 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
>> Also my Unix shell account at "http://sdf.lonestar.org"; blocks emails >> bearing hotmail and yahoo addresses, even if they are not originating >> from the mailservers of those domains. This helps considerably to >> reduce spam. The only downside to their taking such an action is that >> emails from people who use hotmail and yahoo for legitimate purposes >> are also blocked. > This is not good strategy in my opinion. Hotmail and yahoo have > millions of legitimate users, including my daughter and a good friend. My son uses hotmail and a couple of my friends use yahoo. If they want to send an email to me they will send it to me at one of my email addresses that accepts hotmail and yahoo. Most of the people who have accounts at sdf hate yahoo and hotmail and they don't have many friends who use hotmail and yahoo. For most sdf users, the rejection of emails from hotmail and yahoo addresses is a good idea. They support the sysop's decision to reject hotmails and yahoos. > What good is an account that can't recieve email from millions of > legetimate users? There is another side to your question. What good is a hotmail or a yahoo account if there are some ISPs which won't accept emails from hotmail and yahoo? The decision of some ISPs to reject hotmails and yahoos is a good thing because it tends to discourage people from using a hotmail or a yahoo account. Friends should discourage friends from using hotmail and yahoo. There are many other free email services which are much better and more reputable and more compatible with various different operating systems and browsers and email client programs. > I'd prefer a steady diet of spam. I throw out unopened most of the > junk "snailmail" I recieve. And I just delete the spam. No biggie. > But not being able to recieve mail from friends and relatives with > hotmail and yahoo accounts would be intolerable. Junk "snailmail" is not a problem because the sender pays the postage and because the sending of junk "snailmail" is a legitimate and legal way for businesses to advertise and promote their products and services. The sending of junk "snailmail" will often result in positive results for the thousands of legitimate businesses which produce sales and provide jobs and move the economy. Also, unsolicited junk "snailmail" is harldy ever used for the purpose of promoting scams and porns and prostitutes and contraband and illegal sales of prescription drugs. If ever one should receive junk "snailmail" of this nature, a complaint to the postal authorities will usually result in criminal prosecutions against the perpetrators. Complaints about spam of this nature will be ignored by the authorities. Spam is a problem because the recipients pay for their internet connect time when they download it. Receiving spam is like receiving junk "snailmail" with postage due, but unlike junk "snailmail" with postage due, you have to pay the postage for spam regardless of whether you want to accept it. Sometimes I have to use a long-distance dialup connection and a very slow modem to download my email. In this scenario, my having to receive spam is intolerable. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
