Re: opt-out registry comments

Simeon Miteff said on Monday, August 01, 2011 :
> > No.  The recipient of email has to PAY MONEY to receive SPAM. This
> > is common theft.
> Actually I'm more concerned with what I *don't* receive that what I do.
> Google handles most of my non-work email and I find that filters 100% of
> spam, and has a very low false positive rate. This costs me nothing.
> What is problematic is when poor quality RBLs are used to block
> legitimate business emails from customers you deal with on a regular
> basis. I have to deal with this at work, and it hampers my productivity.
> Bad spam filtering is also evil.
> 
In your example Google still fits the bill for receiving the spam. In my
real situation my spamassasin foo is quite good but I still pay (even
if it is not that much) for my servers to receive SPAM (same as Google)

If Spam was illegal and it was enforced with actual prison time there
would be far less of a problem.

And in your example, Spam results in you actually losing legit email
which also costs money. At the end of the day Spam costs money
and Spammers steal money from consumers by making the consumer
pay to receive their unsolicited marketing.

_______________________________________________
IOZ mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.internet.org.za/mailman/listinfo/ioz