Subject: Re(2): Spam

From: ColorNet Robin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:13:48 +0200

[email-masked] a écrit:
>The correct assumption is that _all_ addresses should not receive
>unsolicited e-mail unless one has an affirmative statement otherwise.

The correct assumption is far from being as cut and dried.  What about a
virus warning ?  What about a contact message ?  Who verifies if an opt in
has been accepted and then withdrawn ?  There are many borderline cases
.....  And what about the video mails of tomorrow ?

I am arguing the point that it may be more positive to look at the
mechanisms which are being assembled for control of free speech and also,
beyond the irritant factor, how to articulate the healthy medium term
development of the Internet.

Who has not heard of zapping ? :=)  The advertisement comes on to the
screen and the channel is changed.  Within 3 years bandwidth will be
plethoric and it will be economically cheaper not to bill for telephone
charges than to ask for cents and dimes.  The "economic" argument is CRM
is customer lock in for whatever excuse can be provided.   Please note
that in Europe (and I presume the States) the average individual sees
anything between 300 and 500 unsolicited advertising messages per day !

I am definitely and unequivocally against unsolicited bulk commercial
e-mail but the arguments that are advanced are not those which will have
the sympathy of legislators.  Peer pressure already does a good job and
there are ways of complementing that with effective identification of
those whose unethical practices we all condemn.  However some of these
techniques  could also rebound against the freedoms you take for granted
and which at present are a major thorn in the side of the commercial
interests you seek to contain.

Best regards Jonathan