I am very much anti-spam and not an extremist. please consider that very likely most anti-spam people are not extremists.
j > From: William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:37:09 -0800 > To: Kris Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: opensrs discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re[2]: Spamming > > 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]> > -- > >
