Subject: [Asrg] Stamps

From: David Jameson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 05:31:54 -0500

I sent the note below yesterday but due to my using the wrong FROM email 
address, it got blocked by the list server :-)
--------------------------------------------------
Spam exists because there is an (almost zero) fixed cost associated with 
sending it out.

If  ISPs and whoever controls  any routers along the path of a message 
charged the sending router 0.001 cent (say) per message sent, spam could be 
reduced significantly. The impact on legitimate senders would be 
negligible, perhaps adding a few cents to the montly bill but it would 
effectively prevent large numbers of messages from being sent out by a 
spammer. (It would also stop the ability of a spammer to test email 
addresses at ISPs)

Cheers,
David Jameson

___________________________
Dr. David H. Jameson
Founder and CTO, DigiPortal Software Inc.

"Winning isn't everything but losing isn't anything"
                                                                     Irwin Cohen

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:11:43 -0500

> Spam exists because there is an (almost zero) fixed cost associated with 

false.  snail mail spam exists despite having significant costs associated
with sending it.

---

From: David Jameson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 10:30:30 -0500

I don't recall mentioning snail mail and in the context of this group, I 
think it's reasonable to assume that 'spam' means electronic junk mail.

In fact, I don't believe I've ever heard junk mail that comes by snail 
referred to as spam.

Sigh,
D

---

From: Jim Youll <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:35:40 -0500

At 10:30 -0500 3/7/03, David Jameson wrote:
>I don't recall mentioning snail mail and in the context of this 
>group, I think it's reasonable to assume that 'spam' means 
>electronic junk mail.
>
>In fact, I don't believe I've ever heard junk mail that comes by 
>snail referred to as spam.

Is it necessary to be so pedantic?

I understood that Jameson was drawing an analogy. You may not agree 
that it's a valid one, but please. I've actually heard people use 
that terminology with junk paper mail. I don't, and it's not common, 
but that's hardly the issue.

---

From: "Chris Lewis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 12:12:10 -0500

> false.  snail mail spam exists despite having significant costs associated

But despite it having been in existance for, what?, 50+ years, the 
"striker equivalent" isn't getting 1,000,000 snail mail ads a day. Or 
even at a more normal level, few people are getting, even 5 per day.

The economics are simply that the break-even rate, instead of being "a 
few in a hundred" as it is with snail mail spam, some spammers can 
"prosper"[*] with a return of "one in a million".

[*] Be leary of claims.  Most spammers who claim to be raking in the 
megabucks are actually, currently, in flight from the repo man ;-)  Eg: 
Jef Slaton (if you remember who he was).

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:18:32 -0500

> In fact, I don't believe I've ever heard junk mail that comes by snail 

I get email spam, snail mail spam, fax spam, and phone spam.

only the first is within the purview of this group, but I do think that
comparisons are sometimes useful.

unsolicited advertising is annoying no matter what form it takes.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:44:06 -0500

> "prosper"[*] with a return of "one in a million".

if you raise the cost of sending spam then the spam will be more targeted. 
that doesn't mean we'll get much less of it than we (okay, most of us) are
getting now.  

the DMA members would love to spam us more, but they realize that it won't be
effective for them to do so until they get rid of the "bottom feeder"
spammers.  personally I think they're all bottom feeders.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Nate W <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:35:19 -0800 (PST)

> false.  snail mail spam exists despite having significant costs associated

That's pedantically correct, but it completely ignores the point of just
about every message posted to this discussion so far.

If postal junk mail operated in the same economic fashion as electronic
junk mail, you would get truckloads of it.  If electronic mail cost as
much as postal mail, you'd get far less of it.  The cost *is* a factor,
and it makes the difference between "X exists" and "X causes expensive
problems for everyone with an address and everyone using the
infrastructure."

Postal spam EXISTS, but until dump trucks start dropping loads of it
everyone's from yard on a daily basis, and 20-50 loads on random yards at
random times, and making a substantial contribution to traffic congestion
in general, there is nothing to be gained by equating postal spam with
electronic spam.

-- 

Nate Waddoups
Redmond WA USA
http://www.natew.com

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:43:08 -0500

> > snail mail spam exists despite having significant costs associated
> > with sending it.
> 
> junk mail, you would get truckloads of it. 

the percentage of snail mail spam / snail mail I get is approximately the
same as the percentage of email spam / email that I get. 
(YMMV - I probably get more legitimate email than most people)

yes, it's easier to handle the snail mail spam, but that's mostly because
the overall volume of snail mail is so low. 

lowering the overall volume of email for the sake of lowering the volume
of spam does not seem inherently desirable, anyway.

Keith

---

From: Matt Sergeant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:53:07 +0000 (GMT)

> even at a more normal level, few people are getting, even 5 per day.

Except for Ralsky. He gets an unacceptably high level of snail mail junk 
;-)