Paul writes: > warning, i'm answering an obvious troll from > an obvious spammer. hit D now. In other words, you disagree with me, but for reasons I won't go into, you cannot resist the urge to reply. > you're describing a fairly desireable state of affairs. > many folks would happily pay more for a commercial-free > non-subsidized spam-free e-mail feed. I'll believe that when I see it. > my t1 costs me $552 per month in pac bell service > fees. Is it 100% busy? If not, spam effectively costs you nothing, since I assume you pay a flat rate for a fixed, continuously-available bandwidth. > how nice for you. here's the report of spam > that's reached me and had to be deleted in the last 15 days: If spam is so expensive, why are you logging and analyzing it? Doesn't that raise the cost? I just throw it away.