That is a BIG part of the problem. A SPAMmer can get more bang for the buck with email than fax. Potentially 10-100 thousand times the bang for the buck!! It should not be a matter of how much it costs the user, it should be a matter of does it cost the user something. Just because the cost is spread out over a huge number of recipients does not excuse the act. Besides, its not the recipient that bears the cost, its the recipients mail host.
Also, I think a little referenced but important fact is that almost all of what we consider SPAM comes from illegitimate sources hijacking an unsuspecting mail server for FREE. Not only does the sender pay nothing, but the relay host and the recipient host get pegged for the cost! I know of no faster way to educate a mail admin about the perils of SPAM than to get hijacked by a SPAMmer! We could actually argue that we are saving these people money by blacklisting them, by them learning very quickly that the are an open relay and preventing themselves from being hijacked again (or maybe for the first time)! Yeah, I like that argument! Todd -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of NetQuick Mail Administrator Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 3:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] ORBZ shut down I think a big influence on the legal status of Junk FAX vs. Junk Email stems from the difference between the receiver's cost. Paper is a physical and easily accounted for, bandwidth (at the users end) is a bit harder to count. Additionally the feasibility of spamming a large portion of any population is logistically much more time and resource intense via Faxes. With a single posting you can Email 10s to 100s of thousands of potential recipients. The speed and efficiency of the electronic communications media is it's Achilles heel as well. Kevin Childers ,,,,, ����} ~' Customer Support Desk (910) 486-7845 / (888) 228-0312 Fayetteville Internet Communications APCNet - FayNet - NetQuick - QuickWAN The Carolinas' Fastest Internet Communications Provider ----- 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/ --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] 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/
