> > it's much more difficult to filter spam in general. one person's spam > > might be another person's life-changing investment opportunity... > > I understand the "free speech!" attitude and such, but unfortunately > it isn't reasonable. They're making me pay for their free speech. that's really not what I was arguing. my point was that you can't reliably tell what is spam by looking at the content - the exact same content can be spam to one person and perfectly legitimate to another. I don't buy the 'spam is free speech' argument either, but for a different reason - I see spam as _interfering_ with free speech. Keith