Spam-Busters versus Spam-Protection Racket / Re: Does Spamming Really Exist?

[Spammer <spam@dev.null>]

David Scheidt wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, TruthMonger wrote:
> > Spamming is an 'imaginary' felony, as are anonymity and encryption.
 
> Spamming is theft of services, sir.  I am forced to pay for a "service"
> that I did not request.  I, and everyone else, pays for spam either
> directly in connect time, or because my ISP wastes bandwidth handling the
> stuff.  I am not that much bothered by that it is advertising, or pure
> junk, but that I pay for it.

The thievery is taking place at the ISP level.

I live in the boondocks where the phone company charged $5.00 per 
hour for InterNet access, until they lost their monopoly, after
which their rates magically dropped to $1.00 per hour.
My hook-up rate remains around that rate because of competing
ISP's being required to pay vigorish to the government-owned
teleco, far beyond their actual costs.

If I lived in the 'big city', then I would be able to avail myself
of the $19.95-unlimited-connection charges. Thus, any 'spam' I
received would only cost me my time and energy, as opposed to
the money that the teleco robs me of under cover of their 
government-supported monopoly.

NEWS FLASH!!!
You were born into a world where even your momma's tit competed
for your attention, time and energy.
When your mother's breast-milk dried up, did you petition the
government to have her tit imprisoned under 'Truth In Advertising'
laws? Did you demand that the government force her to refrain
from bringing her tit into your  presence, where it would compete
for your time, attention and energy?

When my mother's breast-milk dried up, I learned to reach for the
bottle (as Anheiser-Busch will gladly verify).
In all of my time on the InterNet, I have responded to and enriched
only one (count 'em, *1*) of the personages who have sent an
unsolicited email to my account. In doing so, however, I have
effectively endorsed the value (be it in an exceedingly minor way)
of those who bring their UCE/Spam to my attention.

You take the position that your ISP 'wastes bandwidth' handling
'spam'. If you are paying them to do so, without requiring that
they provide you with an option in return for the money that you
are paying them, this is not the fault of those who deem that
you may be interested in their product/cause/bullshit.
As well, since the 'spammers' are obviously receiving a response
that makes it worth their while to continue their efforts, it
is obvious that others on your ISP may not regard their missives
as wasted bandwidth.

Sometime ago, plaidworks.com complained about someone 'abusing'
their system by subscribing the CypherPunks list, among others,
to their massive mailings. The fact of the matter was, they left
their system open to being 'used' in the manner it was, in order
to gain maximum profit without going to the expense of putting 
safeguards in place which would prevent others from using the
resources they made available to the InterNet for their own
purposes.

NEWS FLASH!!!
The InterNet is a communal endeavor. Resources are shared among
those who choose to actively participate in the infrastructure
and the technologies of which it is composed.
Those who wish to participate in only a portion of the activity
and resources shared on the InterNet can do so if they are
willing to take the actions required to limit their participation
and/or exposure on the InterNet.

I do not use Gopher. The use that others make of the program is
not a 'theft of services' that 'wastes' the bandwidth of my ISP.
My ISP does not provide Telnet access. They do so in order to
prevent me from availing myself of cheaper services which are
available at ISP's which are not restrained by their monopoly
To me, *this* is 'denial of service.'

Because of the armed robbery of the government-monopoly ISP
that is available to me, it costs me an unacceptable amount of
money to go to USENET. I don't go there.

Spammer