From: Benoît Mussche (benoit.mussche@pandora.be)
Date: Tue Jul 15 2003 - 11:17:50 MDT
On Tuesday 15 July 2003 21:56, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> >> ### But why do keep thinking about the ISP levying charges - it's
> >> you, not the service provider, who is supposed to charge people for
> >> receiving their email.
> >
> > That is unacceptable as well. I don't really understand on which
> > basis i should start charging some people to read their email and not
> > others.
>
> ### I think that Mike Lorrey addressed your concerns very well, let me just
> add: if you feel there is no basis for differentiating between friends and
> spammers in your email reading habits, you might hardly have a need for
> protection from spam. I however feel differently.
No, you misread my message. I was talking about genuine email sent by unknown
people in good faith. If someone writes me a genuine message, it would be
rude not to answer in the extent of realistic time usage.
> > Af for spammers can always hide behind the appearance of a
> > new correspondent contacting me for any reason.
>
> ### No, they can't, or else they will have to pay you, right?
If i have to decide to charge or not before i read the email, a spammer can
disguise his mail into a genuine "i'm a new guy contacting you" type header.
It's very easy to do for a spammer if you run a business, for example.
> > judeo-christian culture taught me, better let a guilty escape [my
> > spam filter] than kill an innocent [genuine email].
>
> ### I don't have much credence in Judeo-Christian aphorisms.
You don't have to. However i chose to hit the delete key twice a month rather
than assassin all spam plus a few genuine emails and leave some people
without an answer to their enquiry.
-- Benoît Mussche
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 11:27:02 MDT