on Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 01:54:30PM -0700, Sidney Brooks (sidneybrooks@yahoo.com) wrote:
> Surely, I am not the only person who has thought that spam is a tool
> for attacking the U. S. (yes to some this will seem provincial) by
> crippling what has become a major means of communication. It can also
> be a tool to repress ideas that you don't agree with, e.g. if someone
> writes a message in favor of abortion or against it to the New York
> Times, the other side can pick up his address and spam him. The
> problem is much bigger than this mailing list.
For clarity and to support conversational discussion style, please use
bottom-posting format: your reply goes below the material cited. Trim
your quotes appropriately and ensure your attributions are accurate.
See:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/email-style.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/top-posting.html
Thank you.
I share your general premise: the ultimate cost of spam is to attack
the utility of email, particularly for those without the technical means
and/or bandwidth to cope with spam. This goes far beyond the US, and
while I'm not sure about the censorship aspect (which has certainly been
used in the past), the fact that this tends to make a valuable
grass-roots channel less useful is very disturbing.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet
or his enemy's?
- Princess Bride
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature