> We seem to go towards a Spam Society instead of > Information Society. Spam Highway, not Information Highway. > Barry, thanks, you try to prevent telecomreg from being > converted to telecomspam. Nevertheless the topics on this > list seem to move towards advertising rather than discussion. > > The noble concept of freedom of speech has been degraded > to obligation to listen. For me e-mail is highly personal, > it is not intended for anybody wanting to sell whatever > or otherwise sending bulk messages. I don't want to have an > obligation to receive any messages that somebody wants to > send, even if I publish my e-mail address. > > The idea that spam receivers may request to be removed from > a mailing list is stillborn. Even if it would work for one > mailing list, it has no impact on the following 1000 lists, > or on the same person / company with a "new" list. > > Time after time I have been told that spam is bad, but the > particular person does not send spam. His unsolicited > commercial bulk e-mail messages are valuable information > or some other excuse. > > New forms are emerging. Somebody is selling e-mail addresses > of professionals in the telecoms sector. > There is no way to get one's name removed. > > Highly reputed organisations have started using spam. One response: > "For your information, we do our utmost not to spam customers. We have a > database of over 100,000 customers and this particular email was only sent > to 1% of this database - people that we considered could be genuinely > interested in our consulting expertise in the ASP/WASP arena." > > It is not possible to buy an electronic publication from OECD > without receiving marketing messages afterwards. They said > it is not spam. For me it is. And it is not the type of > e-commerce that I like. I would call it e-spam-commerce. > > I got rid of most unwanted direct letter-mail advertising. > I simply return the letters unopened. If I had not done that, > I would probably receive some 5 - 10 kg of such mail daily. > This does not work for spam as spam messages are so cheap. > > Is this the future that we want? What should - and can - be done? > > Arno > > At 17:58 28.9.2002 -0500, Barry Orton wrote: > >Please don't respond on-list to spammers trolling the list for > >addresses. I've already removed the original offender. > > > >Thanks. > > > >Barry Orton > >telecomreg list admin > > > >(Yes telecomreg still exists, napping, waiting for one of its > >subscribers to send the list a question, or comment and wake it up.) > > > > > > ------ > Mr. Arno Wirzenius > Telecoms consultant, www.iki.fi/arnow/ >
