At 00:28 24/05/02 +0200, Alfredo G�mez Grande wrote: >We have an e-Business Consultancy in the Internet and among other things, we >do B2B Direct Emailng.
For those wondering what this part is about, see <http://www.grupo-ag.com/eng/ho/5.htm> >Well, apart from that, we have a phone number for any >potential customer to call us. > >We receive 3 out of 10 calls from customers, the rest are salespeople. What >did we do? To set an answering machine and say: "Due to the Telemarketing >calls we receive that interfere with our work we se this answering machine. >Please, leave your contact details and message after the tone" This could be >SPAM translated to the Internet. There's one big difference. How much does it cost (including labour costs) to make the telemarketing call? Tell me this: Do you deny that the cost of sending spam is far less than every single other advertising mechanism you have mentioned? Do you deny that the cost of sending spam is so small that often it takes only one response to make it profitable? Do you deny that if spam is acceptable, everybody has to be allowed to send it? Do you deny that if everybody sent it (or even a small fraction of "everybody"), that it would be absolutely impossible to opt-out? Do you deny that faster equipment (CPU), larger hard drives (Disk Space), and higher bandwidth connections (pipes) all cost more money? Do you deny that spam consumes some of these three resources? Do you deny that the resources used by spam forces ISPs and victims to increase their resources to cope? Do you deny that there are perfectly valid reasons for having an email address in a public place that are not related to giving permission for spam? Do you deny that avoiding spam by not making an email address available means that you do not get the intended benefits of doing so? If you want to claim that not everybody would spam, even if it were acceptable, tell us *why* you think people would not spam. >I don't know what could you do to fix the problem. You could have a new >email address and set an autoresponder in the old one pointing to the new. And by doing so I would be making other innocent people jump through hoops to send me email. What if the message is more valuable to me than it is to the sender, and they can't be bothered jumping through the hoops? I lose out. What's more, my email addresses were chosen because they make sense. Even if this were an acceptable solution, the resource costs are still there. ______________________________________________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] IANALY,TINLA Troy Rollo, Sydney, Australia Fight spam in Australia - Join CAUBE.AU - http://www.caube.org.au/ _______________________________________________ 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]
