Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997

jim bell wrote:
> 
> At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:

<Some deleted>

> even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient.  At that rate, an average
> person would probably receive enough "spam" to  pay for his Internet
> account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to
> the public for no explicit charge.

	Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.?  I'd rather
pay for my Internet access, then be bombarded by spam, no matter what
they paid me!  I think the best soln. is the one that is currently in
place for phone calls - they can call once, but if I tell them not to
call me again and they do, I can then begin legal action against them. 
I pay more per month for my phone service than my Internet service (
although in NY, *everything* is more expensive. ), and junk phone calls
are way more intrusive then spam.

> 
> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com

-pete

-- 
Pete Capelli, CNE	UB Networks, Inc.	pcapelli@ub.com
*****	Finger pete@idaho.ubisg.com for my PGP Public key !! *****
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.        - Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Pete:
> 	Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.?  I'd rather
> pay for my Internet access, then be bombarded by spam, no matter what
> they paid me!  I think the best soln. is the one that is currently in
> place for phone calls - they can call once, but if I tell them not to
> call me again and they do, I can then begin legal action against them. 
> I pay more per month for my phone service than my Internet service (
> although in NY, *everything* is more expensive. ), and junk phone calls
> are way more intrusive then spam.

	I figure if this scheme comes to fruition, I'll just set up a seperate
account (or procmail) to filter out the spam, deposit the coin, and go on
about my business.