Re: Re[2]: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers

[Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org]

That's essentually the USPS's third class mail business model.  They pay 
to mail the junk to me that I typically throw out (but not all of it). The 
amount that they can pay determines how much they can send but also 
requires them to target their audience. As Richard pointed out, the 
problem is that right now SPAM is a free lunch. What's sad is that the 
congresscritters keep trying to put new laws in place rather than making a 
minor change and letting the market place do it. Rather than taxing 
internet access (the law on that just expired I believe) they may want to 
go tax COMMERCIAL access or charge for it.




Tom <tom@lemuria.org>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
10/19/01 10:55 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: Re[2]: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers


On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 10:48:24AM -0700, Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote:
> Ok...If I could demand micropayment from spammers then I'm accepting all 

> the spam I can get, and writing program to replace me reading and 
deleting 
> it. Of course the real question is how much spam do you need to pay for 
> your DSL line? 

the point is that spamming would stop pretty much immediatly. some
targeted advertising would stay, but at a cost of, say, 1 cent per mail
and a return quota of 0.01%, what used to be a pretty comfortable
income from sending out 1 mio. spam mails is suddenly a one-off shot
right into bancruptcy.

to fight spam, you have to destroy the spam business model. only thing
that works.

-- 
-- http://web.lemuria.org
--