$DEITY! Great minds do think alike. I just posted a similar thought to a previous message in this list.
Postal spamming actually pays for a large part of the USPS budget. Were that all cost for spam were paid by the sender. That would cause a great drop in the volume. Kevin Childers ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Armbrecht" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] ORBZ shut down > I believe one of the issues with junk faxes revolves around the senders > using consumables of others to promote their means - noone has the right to > send me unsolicited correspondances that cause me to spend money. > > Send me junk postal mail at home or work any day - you have paid for the > paper it's printed on and the postage to be delivered - so who am I to say > you can't send it - but send me a spam fax or a spam email, and now you > talking about my supply cost for receiving and printing the fax out, or my > bandwidth/server storage, etc. to receive and provide for the emails..... > > another issue, are the spammers responsible for paying for my time in > handling complaints, adminstrative/technical support time, loss business, > etc, etc. for those customers who receive spam and do not want it? Why > should I have to foot that bill? > > > Randy Armbrecht > Global Web Solutions, Inc.� > 804-346-5300 x102 > 877-800-GLOBAL (4562) x102 > http://globalweb.net > http://e-globalweb.net > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Setzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 9:34 AM > Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] ORBZ shut down > > > > > Is there any legislation on junk faxes? > > Yes, there is. Notice how you don't receive junk faxes like you do junk > > email or telemarketing calls. I don't have it close by but I can look up > > the statute if you'd like. We get 20-30 telemarketing calls and who knows > > how much junk mail and junk email per week but only about 1 junk fax. > > > > >Would it apply to junk email? > > Many people argue that it does. It was passed before the mainstream use > of > > email but when you read the statute it could be interpreted that way. To > my > > knowledge this hasn't been tested in court yet though. > > > > > What happened to the side of free speech in the junk fax legislation? > > That's the thing, it's not a free speach issue. > > > > David > > > > > > Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > > to be removed from this list. > > > > An Archive of this list is available at: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ > > > > Please visit the Knowledge Base for answers to frequently asked > > questions: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ > > > > > Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > to be removed from this list. > > An Archive of this list is available at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ > > Please visit the Knowledge Base for answers to frequently asked > questions: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ > Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html to be removed from this list. An Archive of this list is available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Please visit the Knowledge Base for answers to frequently asked questions: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
