On TV.com: 10 Most ANNOYING Characters On TV
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 19 of 61:
Next »
« Previous
Cost is the deciding factor
Just as you stated, snail mail costs are the burden of the sender.
I pay for my internet provider who also provides me with an email address.
I may also pay extra for a larger storage space for my email.
I expect a level of bandwidth to be available for my use while using this service.
Spam steals the storage space that I pay a monthly fee to subscribe to, it steals the bandwidth across the internet which raises costs for providers to supply me with the bandwidth I expect.
Spam is no different from forcing me to pay someone else's marketing bills without my consent.
Posted by: GregSalts   Posted on: 12/15/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Suspicious basis  S.Howard-Sarin ZDNet Moderator | 12/15/04
That is probably the safest way to do it.  doe_z | 12/15/04
Had to happen  Roger Ramjet | 12/15/04
If you do not know where your email is going  Squawkbox | 12/15/04
"no way for a person sending e-mail to know where the e-mail is going"???  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
...then you shouldn't be sending it.  Jomo_z | 12/18/04
How does this differ from fax and telemarketing spam?  dvarona | 12/15/04
The stupidity of judges in the Internet Age...  BitTwiddler | 12/15/04
The stupidy of posters in any age.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
I Wholeheartedly agree  Roger Ramjet | 12/16/04
Well, technically,  rapson | 12/16/04
That's a very real possiblity  voska | 12/15/04
Spam is simple  ONEstar | 12/15/04
The Judge is RIGHT  RobertoSalazar | 12/15/04
The judge May be right, but you are WRONG!  Mack DaNife | 12/15/04
I'm Already Paying Enough To That Traitor Bush  itanalyst | 12/15/04
Where in the story does it say anything about the UN?  Squawkbox | 12/15/04
If you can get Junk Mail you can get Junk eMail  Kerensky97 | 12/15/04
Cost is the deciding factor  GregSalts | 12/15/04
Very well said GregSalts....so the solution is...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
GREAT IDEA!!!  itanalyst | 12/15/04
Here's an enhancement on that, I think.  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
Current technology yes...shortly after implementation, no...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
Damn.  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
One flaw..  Patrick Jones | 12/16/04
Even better solution.  Letophoro | 12/16/04
You're absolutely INCORRECT  d_jedi | 12/15/04
I'm Embarassed To Have Been A Maryland Resident  itanalyst | 12/15/04
The judge can only rule according to the law.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
Not exactly...you are forgetting some things...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
Obviously your reasons don't change the law.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
Law is very subjective and based to interpetation...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
Sorry you are 100% dead wrong.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
Not since 7th grade...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
Hey, Don't Knock No_Ax  itanalyst | 12/15/04
Rant tulr, you lose.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
Rant rule, you lose.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
Rant Rules  SC-man | 12/17/04
No Ax, what state do you live in? I mean besides confusion...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
Ok, you've used that at least twice today...  BitTwiddler | 12/15/04
Just because you were psnaked with it, don't start crying.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
judges judge, that's it  voska | 12/15/04
Strange as it sounds, I have to agree with No_Ax on this one.  Letophoro | 12/15/04
Even stranger,,,, you're right.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
It'd be nice if the article told us what that law said  Michael Kelly | 12/15/04
The law in breif ...  George Mitchell | 12/15/04
I agree.  d_jedi | 12/15/04
The jurisdiction IS federal folks .. No_Ax is correct  George Mitchell | 12/15/04
If It's Legal For Them To Spam Us....  itanalyst | 12/15/04
This decision says nothing about the legality or illegality of spam  George Mitchell | 12/15/04
So the judge won't mind if we forward all our spam to him, right?  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
Is anyone sure interstate commerce laws apply here?  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
Obviously the judge is. I'm betting he knows more law than you.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
Uh... ok  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
Sorry...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
LOL! (NT)  James T. Kirk | 12/15/04
All I'm saying is that the judge could have done more...  Stellardyne | 12/15/04
NO he can NOT! Judges can NOT ignore the law.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/04
This is why we have congress, God help us.  seosamh_z | 12/15/04
Courts Government on Spammer's side  cyberscan | 12/16/04
Anti-spam tools now unconstitutional too?  Sunny Jalolly | 12/16/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

Meet Doc