The last part is just plain wrong. Different messages do have different
values, including different economic values. Legitimate businesses also want
to advertise, and they want to spend their advertising money effectively.
There is no such thing as a business that has a legitimate right to spam. IBM
has no more right to spam me than the guy selling penis enlargement devices,
and I don't care how much either one is willing to spend to do so. And any
financial barrier that would be sufficient to deter IBM from spamming me is
going to be more than enough to keep a friend of mine (perhaps one I don't
know yet) from sending me mail. And a barrier that keeps me from receving
such mail is a lost opportunity for which money won't compensate.
And yes, different messages do have different values. But there is not a
ordering relationship among those values, the values cannot be linearly
combined, and they cannot be equated with money - especially not with the
sender's ability/willingness to pay.
There IS a cost to email, and that has nothing to do with designing it as
efficiently as possible. Nothing "artificial" about it. It uses resources,
and someone has to pay for those resources.
The real cost is in distraction. It's hard to have a useful discussion if you
keep getting interrupted, even if they pay you to do so. And no, my attention
is not for sale, at least not that way. Life is too short.
Sure, postage-paid email will destroy the business model of many
spammers, but not all spammers. Whether the reduced level is
tolerable is a different question.
So what's wrong with that? These are LEGITIMATE businesses selling real
products to real customers.
NO. They're spammers. They deserve the same punishment as any other spammers
(perhaps worse - there's nothing so arrogant as someone who thinks that money
gives them the right to disturb you.)
Keith
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg