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: <>
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: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

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

>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.