"Bill Cunningham" <billcu@citynet.net> writes: > I'm no fan of spam but we all get snail mail ads don't we? I'll repeat my calculation. I'm receiving at least 55,000 spams a year at the rate they are arriving this month. I'm using automation to nuke most of them, but if I did not, at three seconds each that's over a work week every year devoted to killing that mail -- by comparison, the average American gets two weeks of vacation a year. The amount of spam is at least doubling or tripling every year. Imagine if just 1% of the world's businesses decided to spam you in a given year. You would literally have no time in the day to read your mail. You would no longer be able to use email for any productive purpose at all. Email would be dead for you. Quantity has a quality all its own. There is nothing wrong with shining a flashlight at your neighbor, but a 50 megawatt laser is not okay. The junk physical mail I receive is perhaps two or three pieces a day that are easy to throw in the trash as I leave the mail room in my apartment building. Spam is different. Even at current rates I'm spending hours a year dealing with it, and given the exponential growth, soon even my high-quality filters will be as good as useless because even 5% leakage will be too much. > Shouldn't advertisers of a possibly good product be allowed to > e-mail adverstise? No. They should not. I pay for my email link, and my time is valuable. I am protected from getting harassing phone calls, and should similarly be protected from harassing email advertisements. > All we need is the politicians making new laws to stop things! No, that's not all we need, but it is certainly part of what we need. -- Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com -- "Ask not what your country can force other people to do for you..."