RE: Opt-out ? we do know the "bounce" command...

["Paul" <]

Anders Andersson andersa@localhost wrote:
>It's a private property issue, not a free speech issue.

I often hear US based groups opposing only UCE because of worries about
whether they can ban UBE under their constitution. Can I claim freedom of
speech under the constitution if I paint a non-commercial political slogan
on the side of a Congressman's house? Should he have to opt-out of graffiti
from all of those who might wish to voice their opinions on his walls? After
all, I could argue that I wasn't aware he didn't wish to receive my
'thoughts' in this manner...

Spam should be viewed in the same way as vandalism - each unsolicited mail
is unwelcome and causes a finite (albeit small) amount of financial damage
to the recipient. It doesn't matter whether they are commercial messages or
not.

No freedoms need to be limited to combat spam, it is simply a matter of
existing laws and principles being properly applied by the courts. The main
problem is, most of those who make or enforce the laws don't understand the
issues involved, and there is no department or bureau to take action against
spammers.

They also apparently fail to see that the rate of growth in spam will render
the internet virtually unusable in a matter of years if the problem isn't
tackled. I wrote to my MP here in the UK, and the best advice he could get
from the government was that we should simply delete incoming spam and
ignore it. This really highlights the failure of the authorities to
understand that there is even a problem.

Paul Gay
Cactusoft Ltd.
www.cactusoft.net