Referring to the article at bottom.... Someone should point out to Mr. Dennis that there is at least one significant difference between junk snail mail and SPAM/UCE. Senders of junk snail mail, paying postage for it's delivery, probably do in some way keep the cost of postage down for the every day citizen/consumer. I don't know that for any statistcal fact, but can imagine it being the case to some extent. However, individual SPAM/UCE like all other email, not requiring 'postage' (yet anyway), do not contribute to the cost of the delivery infrastructure in the same fashion as junk snail mail. Can anyone elaborate on this more technically, or providing actual statistics? Anyone recognize any other significant differences between junk snail mail and SPAM/UCE?
I wonder how many porno promotions the USPS stuffs in Mr. Dennis' postal mailbox daily? This wannabe self-appointed do-gooder deals with junk snail mail almost as aggressively as SPAM/UCE. If it comes with a postage paid return envelope, I stuff the entire contents into it and return it with a note requesting they dispose of the unwanted trash at their leisure and expense. That which doesn't come with a postage paid envelope... well, it manages to find it's way in a postage paid envelope from one of the other senders. Am I getting a bit carried away with that? G'day to all! Michael What's the big deal about spam? I love it! By Barry Dennis Special to ZDNet May 17, 2002, 4:15 AM PT http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-916304.html Netweb President Barry Dennis says it's time for self-appointed do-gooders and uninformed politicians to stop demonizing spam and examine its legitimate uses in our increasingly Net-centric society. _______________________________________________ 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]
