COX blocking own users outbound email

[Bill McGonigle]

On Sep 3, 2006, at 20:48, Jeff Kinz wrote:

> In fact officers of a public company could possibly even be sued if 
> they
> did so, since it would cost money and that could be in conflict with
> their fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders

That's an excuse people use who don't want to do something. :)  e.g. 
Apple isn't going to be sued by their stockholders for using decent 
switches on their iPods so they don't wear out after a couple months.  
They could - it would save short-term money - but the long-term costs 
are higher.  You can justify most anything you want to do with 
long-term benefits.

But more to the point, would you support monetizing the ISP's anti-spam 
market so they're interested?  For instance, have a standard ISP 
account for $34.95 which includes 100 e-mails per day and a $89.95 
account which includes 1000 e-mails per day and a $350 account which 
includes unlimited e-mails and then charge the user $0.05 per e-mail 
sent over their account limit?

This kind of setup would monetize spam for both the zombie's owner and 
the ISP, in the right direction for both.  The guy who's going to lose 
out is the small-time e-mail newsletter writer who's going to have to 
get himself a $20/mo account from a server vendor.  I can make that 
trade-off.

-Bill
-----
Bill McGonigle, Owner           Work: 603.448.4440
BFC Computing, LLC              Home: 603.448.1668
bill at bfccomputing.com           Cell: 603.252.2606
http://www.bfccomputing.com/    Page: 603.442.1833
Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/
VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf