On Nov 28, 11:33pm, Seth wrote:
}
} The person who runs the mailroom _does_ take my preferences into
} account (and those of my neighbors), since we could _fire_ him if we
} didn't like the job he's doing.
Hence the mail room is different because it has a spam filter, and if
the spam filter didn't work well enough you'd replace it with a better
spam filter?
} I don't care about the sender's perceived value.
Yes, we get that. So what? Except in a few cases where your goodwill
is also known to have value, has whether you care stopped the sender
from sending it?
} > That there's not currently any
} > direct cost for moving the bits into the recipient mailbox is not
} > evidence that [Amazon]'d balk at one.
}
} Therefore, adding such a cost will have no perceived effect (except to
} their shareholders), so how does it solve any problem with Barry's
} mailbox?
If the only messages Barry was getting were from senders whose messages
are valuable enough [to the senders] for added cost to have no effect,
he might not be getting enough unwanted email to argue about.
That, however, is not the point.
The point is that the problem becomes managable when the aggregated
value of the messages to the sender is approximately the same as the
aggregated value of the messages to the recipients, and the assumptions
being made are IMO setting that value too low on both sides.
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg