From: Daniel Miskell <DMiskell@envirolink.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 18:06:37 +0800
To: rwright@adnetsol.com
Subject: Re: Spamming (Good or Bad?)
Message-ID: <199608210735.DAA27966@envirolink.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Ross Wright writes:
>On Or About 20 Aug 96, 18:09, Rich Graves wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote:
>> 
>> > I don't know if there has been much discussion on the ethics of
>> > spamming here? Is spamming free speech? 
>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>> So is mailbombing the motherfucker, or more productively, virtually
>> picketing his ISP until they kick him off for net abuse
>
>That is the kind of self righteous crap that gives me the creeps!!!

So civily dealing with a net abuser gives you the creeps?  THAT gives ME the 
creeps, honestly.

>> 
>> Ethically? We don't talk ethics much here, but I'd say it's highly
>> unethical to abuse a service paid for by the pooled resources of
>> many. 
>
>I pay for my net access.  I pay for my Sunday paper, it's full of ads 
>too!!  Ethics???  Let's rat out on the EVIL spammers!!  Let's turn 
>them into thier ISP!!!  That's a load of CRAP!!!!

We /all/ pay for our access.  Most of us work, most of us pay for the paper,
most of us put up with ads.  Spam is the price of free speech.  One must 
either, in minor cases, ignore it and move on, so as not to encourage; or, in
case of extravagent abuse, send word to the isp, spread the word on the net
that xxx.com is a spammer's haven (and otherwise discouraging further 
memberships), as well as filling the sysadmin's mailbox until the spammer is
deleted and we can all move on again.

It's not a load of crap, it's reality.  Everything provided for civil use and
enjoyment will be abused repeatedly, it's all in how we deal with it.

Greetings from $hell,
Daniel.