Paul writes:
warning, i'm answering an obvious troll from
an obvious spammer. hit D now.
In other words, you disagree with me, but for reasons I won't go into, you
cannot resist the urge to reply.
you're describing a fairly desireable state of affairs.
many folks would happily pay more for a commercial-free
non-subsidized spam-free e-mail feed.
I'll believe that when I see it.
my t1 costs me $552 per month in pac bell service
fees.
Is it 100% busy? If not, spam effectively costs you nothing, since I assume
you pay a flat rate for a fixed, continuously-available bandwidth.
how nice for you. here's the report of spam
that's reached me and had to be deleted in the last 15 days:
If spam is so expensive, why are you logging and analyzing it? Doesn't that
raise the cost? I just throw it away.