Why We're Against UCE

In article <19980110233600.SAA03407@ladder01.news.aol.com>, 
			zlichter@aol.com (ZLichter) writes:
>I am a "newbie" to this news group, and as one I may not be entitled to an
>opinion... but I think since this is a free country.. I will give it
>anyway...last week I have seen the movie called " conspiracy theory"... 
>and it left a big impression on me...

Ok, I read the entire rant, and gee, it sounds a lot like exactly the same pro-spam rant we've heard before. Zlichter, I'll explain it to ya once again (and this time, I'm saving it as a text file so I don't have to keep re-typing the damn thing everytime one of these things come up):

1. Traffic. 1 guy sends out 1,000,000 pieces of mail. Once. Ok, fine, it happens. Maybe the people receiving it actually asked to have it sent. Fine again. 300 people sending out 1,000,000 pieces of mail each day puts a lot of stress on the mail servers out there at each and every ISP. THIS is why, when you sign up on an ISP, they say "NO BULK E-MAIL". There is a REASON why that say that, ok? It's not anti-freespeech, it's for TECHNICAL reasons. Learn the difference, ok?

2. Theft of services. 99.99% of all bulk e-mail is sent from a throw-away account in the attempt to violate the AUP of that ISP. In order to further mis-direct the receiver of the junk mail, they typically hijack someone else's mail server. This means that the people on that ISP probably can't use their own mail server because it's busy running someone elses mail job; someone who hasn't paid the ISP for it.

3. Destruction of equipment. Some short time ago, a mail server in Germany was hijacked to send bulk e-mail. That server was supposed to handle a large amount of Germany's e-mail (if not all of it). The hijacking of that server, and the huge job it was forced to handle, caused it to just plain throw up and die. The huge number of users in Germany who depended on that server were unable to use their own e-mail for several days because of this. Tell me: was this fair to the people in Germany? How this this become a "live and let live" situation for the people who had to put the server back in working condition?

4. Intrusion. The vast majority of people on AOL (and hundreds of other ISP's) DON'T WANT BULK EMAIL IN THEIR MAILBOXES. How can I tell this? Just read ANY internet newsgroup. Look at the "from" address of each person posting. I do believe you will find that 90% of them mung their address. They don't do this for fun, do they? They do it so their address doesn't get harvested for use by spammers. THAT, if nothing else, should tell you that they don't want it. You are on AOL. You know about the mail controls. If I go there and block out a certain domain or address that is sending my users junk e-mail, I am making a decision: I don't want that location sending me junk email. Using forged headers as a way to get past those mail controls is "their" way of saying "We don't care if you don't want it, we're going to harrass you because we can. BTW, don't let AOL make that anti-spam decision for you."

5. Cost transferrence. Not all of us have a local connection to AOL like you do. Some people pay by the BYTE if the e-mail in their inbox exceeds a certain amount. Lots of people around the world pay BY THE MINUTE to be connected. That means that if Bob in the UK has been out of town for a week, he's probably paying big bucks to check his email right now, and the majority of those bucks are now going out of his pocket to receive 2 legitimate emails and 50 pieces of junk email. Explain how this is a "live and let live" situation for him. ........ I'll wait.....

	a) My email box = my home.
	b) Mail controls = locked door.
	c) procedures to defeat mail controls = intrusion into my home.

Sir, when someone intrudes into my home, I do tend to react. There is no such thing as a "live and let live" attitude for such an act.

Personally, if spammers actually used non-forged addresses, life would be great; I could block them all and I wouldn't have to be here. They'd be able to tell by the bounces who's name to take off their list. Since they live by deception, they are criminals and theves, and deserve NO quarter from me (or anyone else here).

I am also very, very glad I saved THIS explaination (though in my desire to have clean text, I accidently deleted the author's name!! Whoever you were [if you're still out there] please stand up and take a bow). I'd have to say this was the BEST explaination for the argument against bulk e-mail I had ever read.

This is a bus. It belongs to the bus company. You may not walk up and paste an advertisement on it. You may not walk up and paint a free-speech message on it. It is private property. The owner may give you permission to adveritise on it. The owner may sell you permission to advertise on it. The owner may deny you permission to advertise on it. It's HIS BUS!!!!

This is a TV set. It belongs to it's owner. You may not walk up and paste an advertisement on it. You may not walk up and paint a free-speech message on it. It is private property. The owner may give you permission to paste an advertisement on it, or he may sell you permission to paste an advertisement on it, or he may deny you permission to paste an advertisement on it. It's HIS TV!!!!

This is a TV signal. The signal belongs to the TV station. You may not hack into the signal and put your advertisement on it. You may not hack into the signal and put your free-speech message on it. The owner of the signal may give you permission to advertise on his signal. He may sell you permission to advertise on his signal. He may deny you permission to advertise on his signal. It's HIS SIGNAL!!!

The owner of the TV may watch the TV station's signal or not. It's his TV. He makes no agreement with the TV station, the station's signal is broadcast. He may watch the station's signal because it has been broadcast, and if he tunes to the TV station, he grants permission for the station to play it's signal on his TV.

However, channel 2 may not interfere with channel 13's signal. Channel 2 does not have the right to broadcast on channel 13. If the TV owner tunes to channel 13 and see's channel 2, channel 2 is trespassing on channel 13's signal.

This is a fax machine. It belongs to me. It's connected to the phone network so my friends can send me faxes. You may not connect to my fax machine and use it to advertise. You may not connect to my fax machine to make a free-speech statement. I may grant you permission to use my fax machine. I may sell you permission to use my fax machine. I may deny you permission to use my fax machine. It's MY FAX MACHINE!!!

This is an email box. It belongs to me. It's connected to the internet so my freinds can send me messages. You may not connect to my email box and use it to advertise. You may not connect to my email box in order to make a free-speech message. I may grant you permission to use my email box. I may sell you permission to use my email box. I may deny you permission to use my email box. It's MY EMAIL BOX!!!

Is this sinking in? You can't have capitalism and at the same time deny private property. Private property and capitalism go hand in hand. You may not use anything which belongs to me without my permission. Period. If you use my property to advertise without my permission, you are trespassing, plain and simple.

Are there still parts of this you don't understand?

<<< end quoted material >>>