Brian,
I for one, do NOT want my email to become as USELESS as my front mailbox. I
do NOT want any UNSOLICITED email, faxes, telephone calls, or snail mail for
that matter. It is NOT a first amendment issue. Restricting content of a
web site or newspaper may be, but me restricting access to MY ears or eyes
(not YOURS) is my RIGHT.
If I have to weed through more junk than content, it becomes a waste of my
time and money. I too have been in this business forever, and I get
extremely frustrated by unsolicited anything whether it is advertising, a
survey, or simply the weather.
------------------
If spammers have their way, most of the messages will be spam.
------------------
I had to explain to my local newspaper company some of this. They kept
delivering a "Wednesday special" that I had in the past let them know over
and over I didn't want. It's like this: I don't read it, but I am still
responsible for throwing it away, I will get a nasty-gram from the city if I
let them pile up. From my perspective then, they are littering in my yard,
hardly a first amendment protection issue. Spam is no different from my
perspective. Spammers are littering my email server and clients, and I have
to spend MY time deleting them, and MY money to have adequate resources in
my systems to get the items I want in addition to their junk. I will fight
it every step. I finally got the newspaper to stop, by letting them know
that if I got one more piece of their trash in my yard, I was going to take
some nasty, smelly garbage that I produced, and drop it in their lobby. I
should be able to this under first amendment if they can leave their trash
in my yard. I wish I could do this to spammers, even if figuratively, but
their email return addresses are seldom ever real, a good indication of
their intent. Typical spammers steal an AOL logon, get a hotmail address,
and spam away.
If the first amendment is supposed to protect people in allowing them to
abuse MY resources that I pay for, than it is high time to rewrite or repeal
that amendment.
Maybe we need to set up email for people like yourself that encourage spam.
I don t want it, and I can t see what possible benefit to me OR society
there is by having to deal with it.
Steve (anti spam) Anderson
--- In
DSN_klr650@egroups.com, "Shepard,Brian" wrote:
> Please don't take this the wrong way. I have been a Systems
> Programmer/Administrator for almost 20 years and spam is nothing new. Its
> been going on way before the Internet as we know it now. I used to deal
with
> it a lot way back in the Eighties (remember BitNet anyone?). What puzzles
me
> is how enraged people get about spam now. Sometimes I wonder if people get
> angry because it's fashionable. Somebody sees what they think is a
computer
> pro getting angry about spam so they get angry when they're really not
> angry. They want people to think they're cool because they get angry about
> spam. There is this little known secret in the IT community. Its called
> DELETE. Its really cool. You just delete a piece of mail you don't want to
> read.
>
> I'm more concerned about people "protecting me" from spam than people
> spamming me. Think about it. This is a First Amendment issue. I'd rather
> choose for myself weather or not I want to read a piece of mail. Now I
know
> that the intentions of the list management is sincere and I'm not asking
you
> to NOT block spam. I just think people need to think more about the
issues.
> Its very simple to delete. You can't delete something that's not there.
> FREEDOM!
>
> -Brian Shepard
> A13
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Hink [mailto:moabmc@l...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 2:43 PM
> To:
DSN_klr650@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [DSN_klr650] $250 Line Of Credit
>
>
> Sick 'em ARNE!!
>
> Maybe it might be a good time to change your subscription options to have
> you approve new subscribers before they can post to our list.
>
> Fred (I like Spam for lunch)
>