Roy Badami <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, in a world where spam filters were properly under the control of > their users (rather than their ISPs) and easily configurable, there'd > be little disincentive for porn spammers to comply.
In your theory, there's still no incentive. The cost to the spammer is the same, especially if he's off-shore, already breaking FTC guidelines, violating CAN-SPAM, etc. And what about company filters, parents with adolescents, etc. > Porn spammers aren't exactly going to make any money out of people who > dislike porn, and those people who actively want this mail (I'm sure > they exist) would quickly learn how to accept it. This is not even strictly true. An accidental page load can still generate ad revenue for a spammer. > I guess it all boils down to whether you're a CAN-SPAM hater, or see > it as a (small) step in the right direction... That's an either-or fallacy. I don't hate CAN-SPAM, I just haven't seen any positive effect nor do I expect much of one. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan anti-spam (SpamAssassin), Linux, http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ and open source consulting
