ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: spam

2003-05-28 12:56:41


On Wed, 28 May 2003, Eric A. Hall wrote:

You still don't seem to understand the nature of proof, arguing instead
that the existence of alternatives somehow disproves a matter of fact.
Again, whether or not you think that the proof is significant is a matter
of opinion, not a matter of proof.

This is exactly true of your position, but not mine.  Seems you are
looking in a mirror.

* Shannon's theorem is a fact, not an opinion.

* The cost of disks and networks are facts, not opinions.

* The cost of spam is a fact deduced from the costs on disks, networks and
computers. It is a fact, not an opinion.

* Anti-spammers already tried to use "costs" in 1998, and lost, when
disks, networks, and computers were much more expensive. That is a fact,
not an opinion.

Email, and thus spam, is practically a free service.  Spam costs
practically nothing.   That is a conclusion based on fact, not opinion.

Your attempts to somehow wave about the impressive cost of the
infrastructure to serve millions of users is simply irrelevant smoke, and
forms no justification for limiting spam.  Highways cost money. Postal
Systems cost money.  Telephone systems cost money. The fact that they cost
money is no reason (nor ever was) to ban Highway billboards, Junk Mail,
Junk faxes, or telemarketing.  The costs of highways systems, postal
systems, and telephone systems played no role whatsoever in the laws that
regulate BillBoards, Junk Mail, Junk Faxes, or Telemarketing. All of which
are regulated commercial speech.

                --Dean





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>