RE: Permission or should I get out more?

From: Alex Chudnovsky <alexc_at_jungle.com>
Date: Tue 30 Oct 2001 17:06:14 -0500

Ok, I feel like being devil's advocate today.

I don't like spam - its not a sustainable buisness model
as you have permission to mail anyway, but lets see
the other side of the story:

A visitor, who say just VISITS (not buying anything),
say YourFavEtailer.co.uk fits perfectly
under your definition of spam:

MIKE PEPPER <pepper_at_w3pg.com> WROTE:

> SPAM:
> - eats backbone bandwidth

Oh yeah.

> - increases non-originator operating costs

As above - it increases YourFavEtailer's costs, you know
all this bandwidth you use to preview videoclips
and music costs £££?


> - takes resources without paying for them
> (aka, "theft")

Didn't pay for browsing, used VALUABLE information from reviews,
ratings etc, should that be classed a theft?

> - eats reader time and interest (even if the
> reader has "filter" software

Eats business people's time, even
if they can filter out those customers
who are not even remotely interested in buying stuff

> - and by doing that, it decreases the
> value/reliability of all email

By doing that decreases value/reliability
of the website.

> - returns no value to anyone other than
> the originator

Oh yeah, browsing for FREE highly expensive
catalogue then buys same product
from competitor whose whole existance depends
on parasiting on someone else's marketing expensises.

> - reveals the sender to be less than a
> positive participant in human society.

Oh well, I won't go as far as to say that about
about potential customers who as we all know always right.


Now, as I said I don't like spam, but I don't whine
(pointless as I saw people saying SAME stuff
4-5 years ago) I just use filters and most importantly
IGNORE COMPLETELY spam emails.

As long as they get $0.00 money they will stop (eventually).
I would love to see some entity that would pro-actively
sue these people, but not for spamming but
for what are effectively scums.

> "Traditional" junk mail, in general, is much less
> trouble and even contributes positively to society
> in general.

Let me try another run:

> - eats backbone bandwidth

Yep, sorting/distributing mail isn't exactly
free (even though professional snail mail
spammers would have some special arrangement
whoever mails their stuff)

> - increases non-originator operating costs

Yes, you spend time picking it
up and throwing into bin, or even, God forbid,
reading it.

Its faster to press Del key in your fav email
client.

> - takes resources without paying for them
> (aka, "theft")

As above.

> - eats reader time and interest (even if the
> reader has "filter" software

As above.

> - and by doing that, it decreases the
> value/reliability of all email

As above.

> - returns no value to anyone other than
> the originator

Not always true, at least as equal for email spam.

> - reveals the sender to be less than a
> positive participant in human society.

Oh well, I don't know about that.

-----------

Regards,

Alex



Received on Tue Oct 30 2001 - 16:06:14 CST