> > On another paw, Craig, do consider who is the injured party. Marc is > not. The final recipient, the addressee, is an injured party for the > spam in her mailbox. The addressee's ISP is also an injured party due > to the (vastly) increased mail volume her servers must handle. They > have a tort for filing suit. The person who filters the spam is, one > can argue, benefiting from the spam. So it is hard for him to sue > and win anything. >
I disagree. As a provider you are paying for the acceptance, processing, storage and re-transmission of that spam. It is costing you resources which can be quantified. My boxes have been running at about 15% on average, 24x7. Knowing that spam is 80% of that then you might be able to prove in a court of law that it is indeed damaging you financially to process this. But the burden gets turned back to you to prove this damage. So the question is what the return will be versus the cost of proving it. Unless you are processing millions of spams per day from a single spammer then more than likely you will be hard pressed to see any type of return.
