nanog mailing list archives
Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful
From: woods () most weird com (Greg A. Woods)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 23:40:26 -0500 (EST)
[ On Wed, October 29, 1997 at 15:40:01 (-0600), djhoward () uiuc edu wrote: ]
Subject: Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful [....] (Contrast this to bulk postal mail, which only costs the sender anything.)
A popular, but unfortunately all too untrue fallacy. Bulk snail-mail costs us all on the less tangible side. Here in Canada our postal service would like us to believe that bulk mail subsidises the cost of first class mail, but in the opinions of many the savings are hardly worth those less tangible costs that might affect us much deeper than just our pocket books. -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP <gwoods () acm org> <robohack!woods> Planix, Inc. <woods () planix com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods () weird com>
Current thread:
- Spam Control Considered Harmful Daniel Karrenberg (Oct 28)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Jason Vanick (Oct 28)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful David Mercer (Oct 28)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Barry Shein (Oct 28)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Don Stacy (Oct 28)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Barry Shein (Oct 28)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Matt Ryan (Oct 29)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Dannyman (Oct 29)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Greg A. Woods (Oct 29)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Dannyman (Oct 29)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Dorn Hetzel (Oct 29)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Dannyman (Oct 29)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Matt Ryan (Oct 29)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Matt Ryan (Oct 30)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Barry Shein (Oct 29)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Matt Ryan (Oct 30)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Paul Flores (Oct 30)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Jon Lewis (Oct 30)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful NetSurfer (Oct 31)