My default priority is normal.
This one I had purposely prioritised High, because of the nuisance value of
having to click two buttons to read one mail. And, especially having to
click the first button without knowing what the mail was all about.
You see, you have to send the read receipt first before you can even read
the mail. In India it's called playing blind. In business it's the ultimate
gamble.
The message was not intended to start off another string.....but!
Abhi
-----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 1:28 PM
To: Abhimanyyu Raj-Singh
Subject: RE: What's OpenSRS Policy About SPAM?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On the same vein, it is considered bad netiquete to send list mail with a
Priority over normal.
Please fix outlook express to not do this as the default priority on your
messages, or please do not mark list messages as high priority.
Thank you.
On 01-May-2000 Abhimanyyu Raj-Singh wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Please stop demanding a 'read receipt' with every mail, it's extremely
> irritating.
>
> Abhi
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org
> [mailto:owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org]On Behalf Of Michael L. Dean
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 6:47 AM
> To: ECS; john.burgess@fastex.net; 'William X. Walsh'
> Cc: discuss-list@opensrs.org; 'Pleasant Valley'
> Subject: Re: What's OpenSRS Policy About SPAM?
>
>
> There are now successful alternatives to spamming as a marketing tool --
> such asthe use of opt-in lists. You end up paying a lot less than with
> third class mail, and if your mail is targeted, even gets high levels of
> sales.
>
> But I do know there are lots of disgruntled programmers out there signing
on
> AOL for a free 500 hours, and then doing a major spam. AOL is only
> effective in catching them about 5% of the time.
> Michael L. Dean
> SourceView Corporation
> P. O. Box 4713
> Walnut Creek, CA 94596
> 925.372.8439; fax-925.372.3841 (after 10pm PST)
> mdean@sourceview.com
>
> International service provider for:
> 1. Internet access, email, efax, news feeds, web hosting;
> 2. Certified and Bonded Domain Name Registration & Management;
> 3. Marketing, market research, public relations and press management;
> 4. E-Commerce Website creation, development & management;
> 5. Software Programming and Development
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ECS" <edseward@cmpsource.com>
> To: <john.burgess@fastex.net>; "'William X. Walsh'"
> <william@userfriendly.com>
> Cc: <discuss-list@opensrs.org>; "'Pleasant Valley'" <domain@pvdd.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 6:56 PM
> Subject: Re: What's OpenSRS Policy About SPAM?
>
>
>> Or the cost a server farm pays when it is subjected to repeated DOS
>> attacks because either one of it's clients spammed or more likely, a
>> spammer falsified the headers to direct the attack away from themselves.
>>
>> He's apparently arguing that a spammer only steals a penny or two from
>> each of his victims, so it is only a minor amount of theft and is ok.
>> It's a weak argument to be against theft if the theft is only a penny or
>> two each victim.
>>
>> Of course what he is overlooking is if the cost of the theft was so
>> insignificant, a spammer would not be stealing the bandwidth, but would
>> be paying for the use of a opt in mailing list.
>>
>> Another factor he is ignoring is the cost of the user's time, who forced
>> to deal with this trash. I received around 100 spam emails a day from
>> the six email addresses I use for my various business interests.
>>
>> Of course this is my fault. If I did not have these email addresses on
>> my web pages for my clients to use or do not use any of these email
>> addresses in lists like this, then the spammers would never bother me.
>>
>> But then they wouldn't bother me if I just turned my computer off and
>> didn't use it. But I would rather turn the spammers off.
>>
>> And I still believe that OpenSRS should remove any RSP caught spamming.
>> Not accused of spamming, but actually caught doing it.
>>
>> You can't allow your company's product to be represented and sold by
>> spammers without expecting to be labeled a spammer yourself.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John Burgess" <john.burgess@fastex.net>
>> To: "'William X. Walsh'" <william@userfriendly.com>; "'ECS'"
>> <edseward@cmpsource.com>
>> Cc: <discuss-list@opensrs.org>; "'Pleasant Valley'" <domain@pvdd.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 4:33 PM
>> Subject: RE: What's OpenSRS Policy About SPAM?
>>
>>
>> > Whattttt?????? Are you an ISP? Do you have _any_ idea how much time
>> and
>> > effort a _single_ spammer costs an ISP?
>> >
>> > Did you:
>> >
>> > figure in the time and labor related costs to tracking down the
>> spammer,
>> > verifying the identity of the spammer so the ISP shuts down the
>> correct
>> > user? How about the time and labor and software costs for
>> implementing
>> > filters and anti-spam measures to marginalize the spammers negative
>> effects?
>> > What about the _REAL_ business costs the ISP faces by being
>> blackholed, or
>> > cancelled by the backbone carriers? What about the spammers who uses
>> an
>> > innocent subscribers address as a return address, and then that email
>> box is
>> > filled with thousands of "unsubscribe me", bounced, and other messages
>> as a
>> > result of the spammers activities? What about legal costs resulting
>> from
>> > lawsuits (from the spammer, subscriber and other secondary parties)?
>> What
>> > about the loss of flexibility and capability to well behaved
>> subscribers
>> > that results in increased costs to subscribers due to "security
>> measures"
>> > that must be implemented that prevent off-network relaying by
>> potential
>> > spammers?
>> >
>> > Spammers gladly pay a months subscription for a few hours of spam time
>> > (before they are caught) on an ISP's network. Spammers cost us
>> (ISP's) real
>> > $$$, and most of us deal with them harshly, for good reason.
>> >
>> > JB
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org
>> > > [mailto:owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org]On Behalf Of William X. Walsh
>> > > Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 3:34 PM
>> > > To: ECS
>> > > Cc: discuss-list@opensrs.org; Pleasant Valley
>> > > Subject: Re: What's OpenSRS Policy About SPAM?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> > > Hash: SHA1
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 29-Apr-2000 ECS wrote:
>> > > > There is a big difference in the unsolicited junk mail send
>> > > by through
>> > > > the post office and that sent through email. We use the
>> > > postal service
>> > > > ourselves to sent out bulk mailings to potential customers.
>> > > >
>> > > > The difference is that we pay for every piece we mail. It costs
>> us
>> > > > almost $1.50 to send a bulk mailing through the post
>> > > office, when you
>> > > > consider all costs.
>> > > >
>> > > > Bulk emailers or spammers do not pay any of the costs for their
>> > > > solicitations. The end user pays the costs through the
>> > > fees they pay
>> > > > the ISP, not the spammer.
>> > > >
>> > > > If the end users of the post office had to pay for the junk
>> > > mail they
>> > > > receive, then you would see the same type of protest
>> > > against it that you
>> > > > see against spam.
>> > >
>> > > This cost shifting argument is the weakest arguement against
>> > > spam. I recently
>> > > did a very simply analysis (that easily inflated the numbers
>> > > by at least 400%
>> > > in favor of your position) that showed the costs to an ISP
>> > > with 10,000 users
>> > > receiving at least 3 times the normal amount of UCE that was
>> > > at least double
>> > > the average size of the typical UCE. And even with 10,000
>> > > users receiving
>> > > email at these inflated rates, the cost to the ISP was not
>> > > measurable (in other
>> > > words, the ISP would not have incurred any additional costs
>> > > as a result).
>> > >
>> > > All other points aside, this argument about cost shifting is
>> > > rather weak.
>> > >
>> > > > And I for one, will not use a company's product that spams
>> > > me. I don't
>> > > > care how good the product is, I know if the company spams, then
>> they
>> > > > would not hesitate to use other questionable business
>> > > practices if it
>> > > > would make them more money. So how could I be so stupid as
>> > > to trust them
>> > > > and buy their product after they have proved their low
>> > > morale standards
>> > > > by sending spam?
>> > >
>> > > It is entirely your right to decide who you will and will not
>> > > do business with.
>> > > I, for example, will not do business with anyone who sends me
>> > > a junk fax. (Come
>> > > to think of it I haven't done business with someone sending
>> > > UCE, but my
>> > > aversion to it is much less) But this is exactly the
>> > > appropriate responses to
>> > > these two situations. You decide for yourself if you will or
>> > > will not do
>> > > business with the party in question, based on the criteria you set.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > - --
>> > > William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
>> > > http://userfriendly.com/
>> > > GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
>> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> > > Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
>> > > Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/
>> > >
>> > > iD8DBQE5C0c/8zLmV94Pz+IRAu0sAJ9OxDZMvpLoS0/xKbv2Lgxv0CSSmQCcCCmq
>> > > YWl4yvIFtWgnmbOguIRCOpY=
>> > > =Y4AE
>> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
- --
William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
http://userfriendly.com/
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/
iD8DBQE5DTkI8zLmV94Pz+IRAj95AKDnuPugfxJlkET2si4sz0OvMezm0gCffDCL
QCpdXPhXIgkU93PPtVWt9x4=
=CF+Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:35:32 EDT