spammistry

[Wendell Cochran atrypa@xxxxxxxx]

> Subject: Anti-Spam Option
> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 05:08:22 +0000
> From: Carl Distefano 
>
> Yesterday's spam took me by surprise. I thought the list was
> configured to accept posts from subscribers only, but clearly that's
> not true (as a review of current settings confirms). It would be an
> easy matter to block mail from non-subscribers. The question is,
> should it be done?
>
> Personally, I'm inclined to say yes, since anyone can subscribe, the
> overwhelming majority of posters do subscribe, and (because rejected
> messages are routed to me) I can alert non-subscribers who attempt
> to post that a subscription is necessary. In a word, we lose
> nothing (except unwanted posts), while the burden on non-subscribers
> is minimal. On the other hand, spam has not been a big problem in
> recent memory -- an argument for maintaining the status quo.
>
> Your views?


My view: close it.

Deleting spam gives me _no_ satisfaction: the spammist has already
trespassed on my storage & taken up a few seconds of my time.

Spam is not harmless. It is not free speech. Spam is trespass,
invasion of privacy, theft, & denial of service. It adds appreciably
to the total cost of maintaining the Internet: everybody pays --
except the spammist.

Wendell Cochran
West Seattle