On Sun, 4 May 2003, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > So, I'm guessing the previous post (the one about "it's OK to have > different opinions") didn't register on your radar as it went by. Nope > Fact: Last year, one of my customers received an email from a person > interested in her product. She had never met this person, and had no idea > that receiving mail from them would ever be important. However, that email > led to a sale of over $1M. Fact: I don't care, my customers have a right to be protected by these F'wits, there is no bound contracts here after the first 3 months, they are all told when we are blocking, they are welcome to LEAVE at their own free will, in fact I'd tell a custoemr to leave before allowing spamming maggots of yahoo, aol, and *.br back into this network > Fact: The customer was located in Brazil, using a Yahoo! account. <grin> Fact2: read fact1 Fact3: yes , you and I have different ways of doing business, thats life. > 2. My point is that no amount of spam reduction is worth the > possibility of missing that single $1,000,000 email. > This second point leads me to conclude that, IN MY OPINION, your measures > are too drastic and not worth implementing. Too much cost and too little > benefit. My customers agree. No cost at all, not to us and if my custoemrs feel they might need to get email from brazill then again they are not bound to contracts to stay. > I know you don't agree. Fine. I'm just trying to show you that yes, two > different points of view _CAN_ exist on this issue. You are not "right" nor I understoodd that all along. But the fact remains we operate differently and will continue to do so, you want to allow your customers to be spammed, I dont and wont :) -- -Res lns01-wick-bne> ipfirewall addb reject all from aol.com to 0
