On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Book, Robert wrote:
> I would think it fairly evident that spam is in the eye of the
> beholder. I suspect that a popular resolution would, therefore, need to
> provide the receiver with control over the type of information allowed
> through a personal filter. This could be implemented by defining a key field
> with a range of values and refinements universally understood by all email
> packages. For instance, if an email header were read to determine that it
> contained an advertisement of a product within a specific product line and
> the email client could be optioned by the receiver as to the desired
> disposition of an email (to include sending it directly to the bit bucket)
> with that classification, the receiver is given control and, so long as the
> system is honored by the senders of the email, minimal umbrage on the part
> of the receivers of email. Spam might then be redefined as email which did
> not follow the classification convention.
Simply because one chooses to be on the Internet, surely is not required
one to incur the cost of others' business methods. If one (the receiver)
pays network costs and one does not wish to receive UCE, then why should
one incur any cost (bandwidth usage, registration, whatever) of receiving
UCE even to reject it?
-dpg
