> Your e-mail client is downloading temporary graphics to display, and > this does add to the bandwidth of the downloaded message, but in my > understanding are not an embedded part of the message.
My understanding is different but I could be wrong. In the spam I was talking about the image files were file attachments. Even the HTML file was an attachment. The files were not downloaded by a browser as a result of viewing an HTML file (no, not even an embedded browser in my email client). In fact, I never view HTML files that are attached to email messages. And they are not opened automatically by my email client. I could be missing something obvious but I don't believe what you are saying about temporary files applies to the large spam I mentioned. I would offer to send you the message (just what you need, more spam!) but I've already deleted it. > I understand your emotional outrage, but that cannot determine law. I wasn't trying to express emotional outrage (okay, maybe a little). My point was that the punishment should fit the crime. If/when there are federal anti-spam laws, I think spam size should be factored in to the penalty. The larger size takes up more of my time to download, more hard disk space on various mail servers, more network bandwidth, and so on. I've read various anti-spam discussions but don't remember anyone talking about this problem (message size). > quite legitimate Apple Computer QuickTime e-mail updates would have to pay > exorbitant fees to send ads promoting new features (lots of HTML graphics). I would never compare legitimate email with spam. If you receive large files via email, whether from a mailing list subscription or relatives sending family photos, that is not the same as spam. > Microcharging per Kilobyte is not something that is billable, for > technical reasons, I hope it NEVER becomes reality... I wasn't talking about charging for email by size as it gets sent. Only after a message is determined to be spam, when determining penalties for the sender, would size be taken into account. > It's within the realm (as the Oregonian lawsuit examples) of > personal lawsuit, IF and ONLY IF you can identify the spammer, ONLY IF > you can prove that they've been sending you large messages after > repeated requests to desist. That's part of what I was talking about. If you can sue a spammer in small claims court, and win money on a flat per-message basis, shouldn't you also be able to tack on some sort of surcharge for spam that exceeds an average or "normal" size (whatever that is)? As to your claim that anti-spam laws are not the proper use for federal laws, it would be foolish of me to enter a debate where I know so little and where the legal and political issues are quite complicated. I'll stick with lobbying for those laws by contacting my representatives and senators. Marjorie [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ spamcon-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.spamcon.org/mailman/listinfo/spamcon-general#subscribers Subscribe, unsubscribe, etc: Use the URL above or send "help" in body of message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact administrator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
