Spam is the worst. Think of all the hoops that we as administrators have to jump through just to deal with the added volume caused by these bozos that feel they need to bombard millions of people for a response from less than one percent. Legislation isn't going to stop these bottom-feeders; they need only the encouragement of a miniscule response to keep bombarding more & more people. The real problem is with the gullible few who fall for the marketing scams advertised in spam. Anyone responding to a spammers message -- or a telemarketer's call -- and actually sending money to them ought to face the severest penalties. Take away a spammer's incentive to spam, and that will make him stop.
Along those lines, there's a new push from the IIA to stop spammers by discouraging people from doing business with them. Read about it here: <http://www.iia.net.au/news/090302.html>. Not sure if this will work, but it's a start. "Spam is the unwelcome by-product of a largely free and open email system", says IIA chief executive, Peter Coroneos. "Spammers are freeriding on the system because their costs are very low relative to their returns. The economics of spam are simple. Send millions, and if a few respond you make a profit. We want the few to understand that their innocent actions are keeping spammers in business. Worse still, many are being scammed, with the US Federal Trade Commission estimating over 70% of spam is either fraudulent, misleading or deceptive." -- David G. Thornton Mac Systems Coordinator � CCL Label, Sioux Falls, SD e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message transmitted on 100% recycled electrons. > > On Friday, September 26, 2003, at 04:13 PM, Joe Sporleder wrote: > > And even with the stretch of the imagination it is made a "free speech" > issue, doesn't my right to choose not to listen apply here too? There > is a joke that says when Alexander Graham Bell sent his first telephone > message back in 1876, the next day, both AT&T and MCI called him trying > to get him to switch! :-) > > So, which does folks consider worse, email spam, telemarketing or junk > snail mail? > > As far as the fight against spam, will SIMS and similar programs be > adequate for the foreseeable future, or will the email paradigm need to > have major changes? I have heard some saying that all email should > become secured, with the likes of PGP and other certification > processes, to check the validity of a particular email. The plus I see > is that it could potentially make it more difficult to send "fake" > email credentials, but a major downside would be that email would lose > its simplicity that has made it so universally accessible, even for the > average person, so I would hate to see email become too complicated and > lose its appeal as a easy, user friendly communication medium. > > Joe > > > On Friday, September 26, 2003, at 03:50 PM, LuKreme wrote: > >> over FIFTY Million. That is, nearly half the households in the US. >> >> What I can't figure out is why a judge thinks someone calling MY PHONE >> is a "free speech" issue. Sorry, but no one has the right to use MY >> PHONE without MY permission. ############################################################# This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
