At 9:28 AM -0800 4/2/98, JDDGA wrote:
>Hi John,
>
> Thanks for your efforts to reduce the SPAM.

Ditto. And for the rest of your efforts here!

>I wish AOL would be more
>agressive in eliminating it.

AOL tries. If you send a note to their abuse address it sometimes gets the
spammer's account terminated.

The real solution lies with Congress. Spam should be punishable by stiff
criminal penalties (say one day in jail for every complain received :) So
long as the penalty for sending spam is just getting your accound
terminated the spammers will continue to just get new accounts as needed.
$20 for a new account, sending a million messages, and getting it closed
down is an extremely cheap way to reach a million people. Even if 99.99%
of them are completely pissed off the revenue from the others will make it
worth while :-( Write your congressman!

---
Bill Arnett "Science is a way of trying
San Jose, CA USA not to fool yourself." -- Feynman

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: [M]: Re: 216xt IMAGE PROCESSING, W. M. Hesler
Next message: Re: [M]: Re: 216xt IMAGE PROCESSING, Bill Arnett
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: RE: MAPUG admin: good news / bad news, John Unkovich
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: RE: MAPUG admin: good news / bad news, JohnLX200