RE: [CH] Chile spam?
CES (ces@preferred.com)
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:42:40 -0500
One big difference between unwanted unsolicited snail mail and its
electronic equivalent is the sender of the snail mail has to pay postage,
albeit a reduced rate but postage none the less. Senders of most spam pay
nothing to deliver their message, as an ISP I have to pay for equipment and
bandwidth to deliver their unwanted message to my customers.
Charlie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-chile-heads@globalgarden.com
> [mailto:owner-chile-heads@globalgarden.com]On Behalf Of Jim DeLillo
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 3:49 PM
> To: 'Scott Peterson'; 'Chile-Heads'
> Subject: RE: [CH] Chile spam?
>
>
> Scott,
>
> Those same arguments can be made against hardcopy junk mail.
>
> The additional carriers to carry it.
> The cost being passed on to users through higher postage.
> The cost and growing problem of recycling.
> The pollution caused by not recycling.
> The land we are running out of because of landfill.
>
>
> But congress nor USPS will put a stop to it. "Junk Mail" represents the
> largest revenue producer for the USPS.
> An entire industry of direct mail merges, purges, mails, tracks and
> propagates catalogs, circulars, and other MASS mailings.
> Another industry relies on the paper, printing, ink and
> production of same.
> And those companies marketing via direct mail rely on their catalog being
> delivered.
> Do you ONLY get snail mail that you requested?
>
> That said, how can you lump me into the same category of scam & Spam that
> sends out millions of untargeted mailings?
> The whole purpose of my mailing, if you read it, was to confirm permission
> to keep you on the list. If I didn't tell you what my products
> or services
> were, how would you know.
>
> That certainly is a courtesy not offered by the list of spammers that you
> rattled off.
>
> You're not interested, fair enough, you're off the list.
>
> But we're off topic.
>
> So your next subject line should read "OT - Spam" (that way I can
> filter it
> out), there's nothin' about chiles goin on in this thread. So
> stop "wasting
> bandwidth".
>
>
> << Jim >>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-chile-heads@globalgarden.com
> [mailto:owner-chile-heads@globalgarden.com]On Behalf Of Scott Peterson
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 3:16 PM
> To: Chile-Heads
> Subject: Re: [CH] Chile spam?
>
>
> At 11:03 AM 2/26/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >I get about as upset about spam email as I do about junk mail from the
> >post office- which is, not at all. In fact I'd rather get the junk email,
> >because no paper is wasted that way. It takes me a fraction of a
> second to
> >delete the digital stuff- not a huge effort on my part.
>
> A lot of people do that. But saying that spam doesn't cost you
> anything is
> untrue. Recently testimony about a anti-spam bill in congress put the
> costs last year at about $8,000,000,000.....that's Billion and going up
> almost exponentially.
>
> There are huge costs beyond 'just hit delete'. Bandwidth to carry it,
> additional mail servers to process it, additional disk space to hold it,
> administrative costs, complaint desks and legal costs. AOL
> estimates that
> at times as much as 2/3 of the mail they carry for their
> customers is spam.
>
> On a recent update for their customers they said they were
> blocking between
> 20 and 30 pieces of mail a day per customer. Given that my AOL account
> gets that many a day, and multiplying it by 17,000,000 members works out
> that their members alone are getting almost 700,000,000 pieces of useless
> mail a day!
>
> My ISP, Earthlink estimates that two to three dollars of each month's bill
> is related to email/spam costs.
>
> Call this a lot of things, but don't call it victimless or without
> cost. It's not and you're paying for it.
>
> Mr. DeLillo may have made a mistake, but it's still a bad way to do
> business because people are becoming less and less tolerant of it.
>
>
>
> Scott Peterson
>
>
> Two wrongs don't make a right,
> but two Wrights made an airplane.
>