Re(2): Explaining spam to policians (was: test message)

• To:
• From: (ColorNet Robin)
• Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:59:17 +0100
• Cc:

Piet.Beertema@localhost a �crit:
>
>>Don't we have any stats on the number of spam received by people?
>>That might be simpler to convince them of the severity of the problem.
>The number of spam received by *individuals* probably isn't going
>to say enough. Figures about entire *organisations* may well say
>a lot more. I've done so on various occasions for CWI in the past
>couple of months. Although CWI is a relatively small organisation
>(some 250 people), the figures I got ranged from some 750 to some
>3000 *per day*. Part of this can be explained by the fact that we
>have quite a few people whose (present of past) activities cause
>their e-mail addresses to be known in the entire Solar System,
>and thus to become "prime targets" for spam. But even so...
>
>
>         Piet
>
Good Morning

It might be better to look at SPAM as we know it today as just a passing
phase whose window of operation is limited to effective roll out of DNS
SEC in an IPv6 environment in a context where recent legislative attempts
such as the European Parliament's directive on Privacy banning non opt in
cookies 


Best Regards,

Jonathan Robin
____________________________________
Life :  A finite succession of infinite opportunities
______________________________________
ISOC  France 17 rue Hamelin 75016 Paris  Tel : +33 (0)1 4505 9680
Liaison Internet Society UNESCO OECD & NGOs
Co-Founder  IPv6 Forum Societal Impact & NGO Relations Working Group
Steering Committee : Internet Societal Task Force  http://www.istf.org
ISTF Privacy and Security Working Group
http://istf-docs.norrnod.se/tpd/wg_privsec-2.2-tap.html
_____________________________________
UNESCO/UNITAR Scientific Committee
Festive Committee Internet Fiesta http://www.internet-fiesta.org
Vice President Association Francaise de T�l�travail http://www.aftt.net
Vice President European Student Vote  http://www.eu-studentvote.org

• Post To The List:

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Explaining spam to policians (was: test message)
    • From: Jan Meijer
  • Re(2): Explaining spam to policians (was: test message)
    • From: Piet Beertema
  • Re: Re(2): Explaining spam to policians (was: test message)
    • From: Koos van den Hout

• References:
  • Re: test message
    • From: Piet Beertema
  • Re: test message
    • From: Piet Beertema
  • Re: Explaining spam to policians (was: test message)
    • From: Piet Beertema
  • Re: Explaining spam to policians (was: test message)
    • From: Piet Beertema