TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: EFFector 19.12: Action Alert - Stop Congress from XXXing

Re: EFFector 19.12: Action Alert - Stop Congress from XXXing

Robert Bonomi (
Sat, 08 Apr 2006 12:22:44 -0000

In article <>, Monty Solomon
<> wrote:

> EFFector Vol. 19, No. 12 March 31, 2006

> A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
> ISSN 1062-9424

In the 373th Issue of EFFector:

> * Action Alert: Stop Congress from XXXing with Free Speech!
> * EFF Motion in AT&T Surveillance Case Draws Government's Eye
> * "Email -- Should the Sender Pay?": EFF Fundraiser, Debate Between
> Esther Dyson and Danny O'Brien
> * Hearing Set for Key Bloggers' Rights Case
> * FEC Protects Bulk of Internet Speech From Campaign Finance Rules
> * DMCA Rulemaking Hearings Underway
> * miniLinks (15): The Gagged ISP Operator
> * Administrivia


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can tell you right now what the
> answer to that third item on email -- 'Should sender pay'-- be: if
> the senders are going to be sending out these _HUGE_ loads of crap
> like I found in my inbox (inbox yet, to say nothing of spam box
> which had a record volume while I was in the hospital) -- if they
> are going to be sending all that out then YES they should be required
> to pay for it. I mean, I was working on spam, weeding it out most of
> Thursday morning. PAT]

I take it then, that _you_ are ready, willing, and prepared to pay to
send out TELECOM Digest emails, right?

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Absolutely! If in fact, TELECOM Digest
is detirmined to be 'spam' (not very likely IMO), then I would have to
pay to send it out, as would other publshers similarly situated. I say
it is not very likely, since -- if you will quit pouting and read
along with me for a few minutes -- what we shall call the 'AOL people'
(meaning that organization and its pay-for-email-supporters) have all
said they do not intend to change a thing where _estabished, bonafide_
mailing lists and newsgroups are concerned. You understand, of course,
(at least I think you understand) that this would all be a moot point
if it were not for the spam-enablers among us; not the spammers, but
the enablers.

If mosquitos bite your arms in the next three or four months, do you
blame the mosquitos for doing what comes naturally to them? But if you
were given a can of RAID or similar but refused to use it or only used
it in a half-hearted way (puh-leese! let's not go through the
inventory of excuses all over again!) then I would blame you. I do not
expect any better out of mosquitos, nor of spammers, either. They are
all low-life. Well, spammers can sometimes be trained. Now if the
enablers did a good, comprehensive job of abatement, none of this
would be needed. But I am sure it will come to that before long. The
enablers won't be able to get off their high-horses long enough to
work together; every worthwhile plan will be damned to hell by all
the others so those of us who put out our little ouvres each day or
three will have to pay for it. So yeah, to answer your question, I
would have to start paying also if it came to 'that point'. PAT]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Mike: "Today's Last Loser: Another Spammer"
Go to Previous message: DLR: "Re: What Happened to Me"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page