From: Steve Davies (Steve365@btinternet.com)
Date: Mon Jul 14 2003 - 14:38:45 MDT
Robert says re spam
>Even if we enact very tough anti-SPAM laws (such as Michigan, e.g.
>http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/07/2157215&mode=thread&tid=111
&tid=123&tid=126&tid=99
>or a national anti-SPAM measures - for status see:
>http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/10/1442240&mode=thread&tid=103&tidxÓž
=111&tid=126&tid=99
>it isn't going to do much good if the source of the problem is
>international (esp. if Russian Mob employed hackers are a significant
>part of the problem).
>
>> Since bandwidth is free, they could devour it with wild abandond.
>
>Communications bandwidth *isn't* free. Its just that we have a hangover
>from the dot-com exuberance (read Global Crossing...) that currently
>makes it look almost free. And the human bandwidth is *definitely*
>not free.
Am I just being simple but isn't a simple solution to charge for sending
emails? Quite a modest charge would make spam unprofitable (unless the world
is full of genitally challenged guys in houses with septic tanks, which they
need to remortgage to clear all their debts so they can go on working from
home..) Steve Davies
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 14 2003 - 14:50:51 MDT