On Mon, 26 May 2003, Eric A. Hall wrote:
on 5/26/2003 6:08 PM Dean Anderson wrote:
However, the problem with spam is that the cost is so insignificant as
to be immeasurable, so there is no cost shifting,
The facts demonstrated are that (1) there is real cost for bandwidth, (2)
there is a real cost for equipment, and (3) there is a real cost for
staffing, all due to spam. Whether you consider these facts to be
sufficient either cumulatively or in detail is a matter of opinion.
Certainly. However, in the case of Junk Faxes, there were definite costs
to each fax, and definite harms to running out of paper. This isn't the
case with spam.
The existing laws support my opinion, not yours.
I don't think so. The existing laws, and laws pending in Congress don't
ban spam. I don't think there is any chance that any such proprosal will
be brought up, or passed. If you think otherwise, please let me know why.
Bill text would be good.
and unlike fax, there is no definite harm since there is no paper to
consume or to run out of.
There are plenty of examples of crashed and clogged servers due to
resource consumption. But that's not important, either. The TCPA addresses
other concerns including lack of availability due to excessive use, and
isn't limited to resource consumption issues.
These examples are not due to either Type 1 or Type 2 spam. They are due
to Type 3 activity. In my personal experience, Type 3 activity has only
been due to the activity of anti-spammers trying to "teach me a lesson",
or as in the case with ORBZ, due to illegal scanning. Other anti-spammers
have attempted to crash mailservers from other people they didn't like.
There may be others besides anti-spammers, with other agendas, but this is
not a justification for banning Type 1 spam. Nor will it ever be.
And I note that the junk fax doesn't ban all unsolicited faxes.
Notably, it doesn't ban political faxes.
My proposal left room for exceptions as well.
And all this is hypothetical, since there is no chance that bonafide
commercial solicited spam will be banned anytime soon.
I haven't claimed that we need to ban solicited mail.
But you are. Perhaps I haven't seen your proposal detail.
I think you've made your opinion pretty clear at this point. When you find
some new data that supports your opinion, let us know.
Heh. Likewise.
--Dean