dean a small note before i add you to my procmailrc > > On Wed, 28 May 2003, Eric A. Hall wrote: > > > You still don't seem to understand the nature of proof, arguing instead > > that the existence of alternatives somehow disproves a matter of fact. > > Again, whether or not you think that the proof is significant is a matter > > of opinion, not a matter of proof. > > This is exactly true of your position, but not mine. Seems you are > looking in a mirror. > > * Shannon's theorem is a fact, not an opinion. > > * The cost of disks and networks are facts, not opinions. > > * The cost of spam is a fact deduced from the costs on disks, networks and > computers. It is a fact, not an opinion. > > * Anti-spammers already tried to use "costs" in 1998, and lost, when > disks, networks, and computers were much more expensive. That is a fact, > not an opinion. > > Email, and thus spam, is practically a free service. Spam costs > practically nothing. That is a conclusion based on fact, not opinion. > your conclusion is incorrect, we have to pay sysadmins to keep spam out of our mail boxes and in some cases prefessional services to keep spam out of mailboxes that are real important. just as my paper shredder and the electricity to run it cost me to process junk mail and garbage service to throw away the trash. buring it is not an option in my fair city. if you wish to continue draw conslusions through falty analysis you may land in my filters... -rick