a bit of lovely news about spam in California

Sat Jan 5 11:50:01 PST 2002

I appreciate the thought, but...

"Derek J. Balling" wrote:
> Mark it "return to sender" and put it back. Make the post office
> deliver it twice, once to you, once to them.

That merely creates an extra obligation on my part, beyond 
simply recycling it or throwing it away.  Also amounts to trying
to start a denial-of-service attack on the USPS rather than 
approaching the problem by lobbying.  Not really a solution.

> Only if your mail server accepts mail from the USPS/E-mail mail
> server, which I know mine certainly won't. ;)

If "universal" (I put it in quotes for a reason!) emailboxes for
residential addresses, or residents, ever take hold, there are a 
number of different scenarios which would make USPS E-mail blocking
a poor choice.  Two of the most plausible are that other gov't 
agencies begin to use that delivery method by default in order to 
realize significant cost savings, and that the USPS contracts out
the actual end-delivery to major ISPs.  Blocking would probably
be against one's own best interests in both those cases.  YMMV,
of course.

cheers,
Strata

-- 
========================================================================
Strata Rose Chalup [KF6NBZ]                      strata "@" virtual.net
VirtualNet Consulting                            http://www.virtual.net/
 ** Project Management & Architecture for ISP/ASP Systems Integration **
=========================================================================