Wednesday, Wednesday, January 30, 2002, 11:14:48 AM, Kris Benson wrote: > William X Walsh wrote: >> >> > 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... >> >> Extremism. >> Exactly why I dislike the antispam community.
> "Back in the day..." spam was not tolerated by anybody, and there were > occurrences of hackers shutting spammers down. How great it would be if > that hadn't stopped. Yeah, then a lot of hackers would be behind bars. >> As to your arguments about costs, they are only costs if you actually >> paid more because of it. If you can show that you actually had to >> move to a higher tier of bandwidth need, or that you had to invest in >> extra servers, to handle the spam, then it is a cost related to spam. >> If not, then it isn't, since it was an expense you would have been >> paying anyway, regardless of whether the spam came in or not. > Sure it is a valid cost. First, we pay traffic -- and that's not cheap > (you can ask any of our DSL clients about that one). Next, we have to pay > to have a systems administrator periodically handle huge message delivery > queues because there are people getting spam that have stopped checking > their e-mail. This huge message queue slows down other services which are > profitable for us. > Now, add to the fact that my co-workers and I each spend 15 minutes or > more per day deleting spam from our mailboxes. Our employer is paying us > whether we're responding to real e-mail or deleting spam. This amounts to > at least $1000 per employee per year. So, if spam is outlawed, you will take a $1000 per year pay cut? Didn't think so. > Spam costs the recipient money. That's the bottom line. There are much better arguments, the cost one is the least persuasive and the most flimsy. The antispam extremists don't do their cause any service by using it as their rallying point. -- Best regards, William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --
