On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:40:41 -0800, "Jed Margolin"
<jmsml(_at_)jmargolin(_dot_)com> wrote:
Many people have different definitions of spam. Since spammers seem to be
the Internet manifestation (or infestation) of telemarketing
While I understand the premise, I feel the need to point out the
dangerous flaw in that statement. Spammers are not like telemarketers.
They're not even close in terms of practical impact.
In telemarketing, the cost of the marketing effort is borne by the
marketer. The recipient bears only the inconvenience and the soft
costs (time, lost opportunity, etc...).
With spam, the marketer bears nearly zero cost, while the recipients
(and the interim networks) bear the majority of the cost. In fact,
since the spammer generally only experiences fixed costs and
little-to-no variable costs (which is also entirely unlike a
telemarketing operation which is opposite that), the more messages a
spammer sends, the closer their cost per message gets to zero.
Ted
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg