1997-08-03 - Re: bulk postage fine (was Re: non-censorous spam control)

Header Data

From: sar <sar@cynicism.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 0a811507a029feb7ba57dd047899b05b26945d937629321f399419d14a6795f1
Message ID: <3.0.2.32.19970803032004.00818890@box.cynicism.com>
Reply To: <199708021921.UAA06401@server.test.net>
UTC Datetime: 1997-08-03 08:37:35 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 16:37:35 +0800

Raw message

From: sar <sar@cynicism.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 16:37:35 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: bulk postage fine (was Re: non-censorous spam control)
In-Reply-To: <199708021921.UAA06401@server.test.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970803032004.00818890@box.cynicism.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 06:32 AM 8/3/97 +1000, ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>On Sat, 2 Aug 1997, Adam Back wrote:
>
>> Next we choose a threshold say 1000 posts per day.  Seems hard to
>> imagine anyone generating manually over 1000 emails per day.  That's
>> more than 1 per minute for a 10 hour day.
>
>I bet this mailing list generates traffic of that order.  I would not wish
>to see legitimite mailing lists shut down to stop the spam.
>
>The best soultion given so far is Cause's suggestion of modifying the fax
>law so that we can sue the spammers.
>
Take bugtraq which has over 12,000 subscribers. Each post to bugtraq would
send out 12,000 emails so it would cost aleph one 1200$ per post to his
list. I dont think anyone would want to run a mailing list under these
sorts of conditions. Or say you run a normaly small mailing list with only
a few subscribers. One evil person could send just a few hundred emails to
you cost you money. The same goes for anon emails. Anyone not wanting to
take the chance of ending up spending $100 or more at the whim of any 14
year old with a copy of upyours or not wanting to have to pay for providing
a free public service would simply give up and shut down his mailinglist.

   






Thread