a bit of lovely news about spam in California

Mon Jan 7 16:27:47 PST 2002

At 3:40 PM -0800 1/7/02, Strata Rose Chalup wrote:
>Sorry, I think this kind of attitude just adds to the problem.
>Traffic is traffic.  Saying one kind of traffic is "spam" and
>therefore bad, and the other is "autoLART" and therefore good
>and/or justified is just moral window dressing on having spam
>cost 2*X bandwidth instead of just X bandwidth to the net
>community.

Wait... they (the USPS) gets paid by the sender to send me stuff. 
They don't cut me in for a percentage of the cash. They INSIST that I 
accept it, don't give me any way of avoiding having my mailbox 
cluttered with stuff. They (both the USPS and the sender) force ME, 
the recipient, to pay for its disposal cost (or risk the littering 
fine if I just drop it on the ground by my mailbox), and you think 
that sending it back to them as "unwanted" is somehow out of line?!

Any way that you cut it, if I accept the junk-mail, I have to incur 
the cost of disposal. The only way for the recipient NOT to accept 
the disposal cost is to hand it back to the USPS for disposal. But 
since they won't "dispose" of junk mail for you, you have to tell 
them to send it back where it came from.

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  |
+---------------------+-----------------------------------------+