On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:35:33 -0800, you wrote: > I don't see this population-resistance effect increasing by the use of > personal spam/noise filters. I only see benefits to the > protected individual.
If a large enough proportion of users applied effective spam filters, then the costs of spamming would be borne by a shrinking number of delivered spams. To the extent that the marginal cost of an outgoing spam is negligable, there would be no economy-based deterrent effect on the spammer. If spamming is essentially free and the spammers' revenues are based on gross emailout, then the spammer doesn't care how many addressees fall into the categories of filtered-unread or read- but-non-responder. A dead or filtered address pays as well as a responder. The ability to externalize the preponderance of costs provides for very limited incentive for the spammer to economize. Perhaps a call on the conscience of spammers? Just kidding.
