--- "Mark C. Ballew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In general though, I think it is a bad idea to publicly admit that you
> are sending out bulk email, opt-in or not. Call me a censor or someone
> who isn't an advocate of free speech all you want, but I think most
> Internet users curl up into a little ball and begin to cry at the first
> hint of bulk email.
I don't think that is censorship, it should be common sense. Even though I would
like to
tweak as much performance as I can out of Postfix, I should have realized that this is
not the
place to even mention bulk e-mail (whatever the reason or purpose).
--- "Todd A. Jacobs" wrote:
>I don't like the idiotic proposals that commercial companies keep
>floating for making email cost money (e.g. charging micropayments for
>each email). I just think that the cost structure should essentially be
>shifted from the recipient to the sender by the nature of the underlying
>protocol.
>
>The real problem with spam is that it's profitable, and that the
>commercial interests behind it ensure that the politicians are kept fat
>and happy with PAC money so that nothing will be done about it. That's
>the real crime here.
Couldn't agree more. If it is profitable, someone will do it.
Abraham
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
_______________________________________________
RLUG mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
