Dean writes: > Which is still practically nothing, compared to the > bandwidth consumed by http (gifs and jpegs), IM (and > its picture sharing), (legal) movie and MP3 > downloads, and other stuff. I know, which is why I specified e-mail bandwidth specifically. One cannot say that spam is actually putting a load on network bandwidth, since there are much greater bandwidth hogs on the Internet > Also, you mentioned something about porn to children. > This is already illegal. If its a Type 1 or Type 2 > operation, they are easy to shutdown. Of course, spammers tend to send to e-mail addresses, not to human beings. Whoever has access to the mailbox receives the mail. But I don't see any reason why pornographers would target children, since their only real market is adults. > Unfortunately, quite a lot of this type of spam > is Type 3 spam, just meant to shock and annoy, and > not meant to really sell porn. I don't even know what is Type 1 or Type 3 in my mailbox, since I delete it all without reading it.