anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?

Sat May 4 16:57:25 UTC 2002

<measl at mfn.org> writes:

> > It does not cost "very little" to recieve spam.
> 
> It costs the end-user very little to recieve spam.

I'll echo Paul's comments about the cost of my time.  In my case, a
half hour a day seems about right (compared to Paul's hour a day).  I
suspect you may have a very different perception about the value of
your time than Paul and I have about the value of ours.  I am sure
that we have customers whose time is worth a lot and whose time is
worth very little.  Over half of our customers, however, are in
countries where there is a per-minute cost to being off-hook on a
dialup.  They see a very direct cost to download spam, aside from the
human costs.

> Whether we like it or not however, this is a cost of doing business now, and
> is a normal part of determining your cost of goods sold (at least it *should*
> be).

Counting inventory shrinkage costs as part of the cost of doing
business at a retail establishment does not change the fact that
shoplifting is a crime.

> > Spam is theft, plain and simple.
> 
> Spam is a reality that none of us, either alone or in concert, will ever be
> able to eradicate.  That makes the general gnashing of teeth == tilting at
> windmills.

Your position is noted.

> Our time is probably the most expensive part of an ISPs "spam
> cleanups" budget - automating a filter system (for those who specifically ask
> for it, of course) via the purchase of services from Vixie or your favorite
> equivalent is likely to be a reasonably inexpensive alternative to having us
> spinning our wheels.  <asbestos underwear in place ;->

You have incomplete information.  That's all I'm going to say about it.

                                        ---Rob