Re: Spam costs and questions

[Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com>]

At 12:45 PM -0700 6/4/97, Declan McCullagh asked:
>	What are the costs to consumers of
>	unsolicited e-mail?  I guess the time it
>	takes to delete it might be one, hard
>	drive space might be another.  I would
>	like to know how to quantify it, and
>	compare it with the cost of sending
>	e-mail.

I don't think the costs of the 1-3 spam messages I get each day is
significant.  (But I don't post to Usenet.)


>	If you banned commercial e-mail,
>	wouldn't it just affect legitimate
>	commercial transactions?  That is to say,
>	wouldn't fly-by-night pyramid-scheme
>	builders still be able to spam?  I would
>	think that if they are so untraceable
>	that it's hard to block their spam that
>	it wouldn't really matter if it were
>	simply made illegal.

Can you say regulatory arbitrage?  The current social controls on spam are
good enough that no one with any positive reputation wants to have anything
to do with it.  This means that spammers have to use anonymous offshore
answering services.  The widespread hatred of spam and spammers should keep
the total amount under control without the legal action and in spite of the
very low cost of spamming.

The recent problems Spamford has been having with denial of service attacks
is just one example of the social control process.  The flood of hostile
email spammers who include real email addresses receive are another.
Legitimate commercial email does not evoke these strong reactions.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | The Internet was designed  | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | to protect the free world  | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | from hostile governments.  | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA