From: Vipul Ved Prakash <vipul@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 05:46:13 +0800
To: jims@MPGN.COM (James C. Sewell)
Subject: Re: Spamming
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960821145232.006fe294@tansoft.com>
Message-ID: <199608221455.OAA00207@fountainhead.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


> 
> At 06:09 PM 8/20/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote:
<Snip>
> No.  I think we can all (most) agree that spam-email is like junk-snailmail.
> In that case there are a few things to consider:
> 
>   1. Junkmail requires the SENDER to pay for it, not the recipient.
    Internet pricing models are complicated and debatable, but you surely
    end up paying for snail-junk-mail. Not directly, but hidden in the high
    first-class mail costs. More mail, more infrastructure, higher costs.
    This could be quite true for the net also, if we consider bandwidth costs
    money.
  
Vipul

--

Vipul Ved Prakash                       Voice   91 11 2247802
<vipul@pobox.com>                       Fax     91 11 3328849
      198 Madhuban, IP Extension, Delhi 110 092, INDIA