From: fork-admin@xent.com  Mon Aug 26 22:18:19 2002
Return-Path: <fork-admin@xent.com>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.netnoteinc.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6106E43F9B
	for <jm@localhost>; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:18:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from phobos [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:18:19 +0100 (IST)
Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7QLIPZ10013 for <jm@jmason.org>;
    Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:18:25 +0100
Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 9F9792941DA; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Delivered-To: fork@example.com
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 16C54294099 for <fork@xent.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:38:02
    -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (danbri@localhost) by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3)
    with ESMTP id TAA12658; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:39:45 -0400
From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
To: Lucas Gonze <lgonze@panix.com>
Cc: "Fork@Xent.Com" <fork@example.com>
Subject: Re: The case for spam
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0208221910560.17440-100000@localhost.localdomain>
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0208221935220.31207-100000@tux.w3.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: fork-admin@xent.com
Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com
X-Beenthere: fork@example.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:fork@example.com>
List-Subscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>, <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork.xent.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>,
    <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://xent.com/pipermail/fork/>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:39:45 -0400 (EDT)
X-Pyzor: Reported 0 times.
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=7.0
	tests=DATE_IN_PAST_48_96,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,
	      KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,
	      USER_AGENT_PINE
	version=2.40-cvs
X-Spam-Level: 

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Lucas Gonze wrote:

>
> Political mail (the snail kind) doesn't bother me.  I like it a lot of the
> time, because as crap as it is at least it's not the kind of info you get
> on TV.  Particularly for small time local politics, it's the best way to
> get information.

Except that thanks to the magic of spam, it's usually some else's locale

> but what matters is that mail is speech, and political email has to be as
> well protected as any other political speech.  Spam is *the* tool for
> dissident news, since the face that it's unsolicited means that recipients
> can't be blamed for being on a mailing list.

A terrible argument. There are better technical solutions to privacy
protection than sending a copy of the same message to everyone on the
Internet, so the recipients can't be blamed for reading it.

Wait till phone spam is as cheap to send as email spam...

Dan



http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork

