Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
The sender paid for the delivery. Unlike with email spam where the sender steals the resources for delivery. Notice that, before you implemented automatic throwing away of email, how you received vastly more email spam than you did postal mail (ads and real mail). Putting the cost of delivery on the sender makes advertisers think twice before paying to put a piece of paper in your mailbox. (while I get enough postal spam, I still don't get a whole lot)
Mind you we still pay for it. I don't think the post office takes a portion of the proceeds from sending junk mail and hands them over to the local municipalities for waste removal and management. It is quite an eye opener to live in an apartment complex and see the trash bin next to the mailboxes stuffed to overflowing almost every day from the 99.9% of junk mail that isn't wanted and thus by definition isn't needed. Multiply that by the number of complexes in any decent sized metro area and it comes out to at least a few truckloads of crap every day that people never even look at yet have to pay for the removal and storage/management of.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature