a bit of lovely news about spam in California

Sat Jan 5 12:35:00 PST 2002

>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.

A DoS?! how is this any more of a DoS than configuring your router to 
reject packets from $REMOTE_NETWORK instead of simply dropping them?

>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.

I don't seriously conceive of any USER actually using USPS e-mail 
addressing. This is one of those ideas that you'll probably see 
decline now that the dot-com boom is over.  :-)   I think it was USPS 
going "hey, thar's gold in them thar hills!"

D

-- 
+---------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| dredd at megacity.org  | "Thou art the ruins of the noblest man  |
|  Derek J. Balling   |  That ever lived in the tide of times.  |
|                     |  Woe to the hand that shed this costly  |
|                     |  blood" - Julius Caesar Act 3, Scene 1  |
+---------------------+-----------------------------------------+