Re: SPAM and the tragedy of the commons

• Next message: Phil Chappell: "The Hoax"
• Previous message: Peter Smagorinsky: "for what it's worth....."
• In reply to: Bill Barowy: "SPAM and the tragedy of the commons"
• Next in thread: Phil Chappell: "The Hoax"
• Reply: Phil Chappell: "The Hoax"
• Reply: Bill Barowy: "Virus hoaxes, tragedy of the commons, motive"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

At 08:07 25/2/03 -0500, you wrote:
>"The incremental cost of sending one more piece of e-mail is free," Schneier
>said. "Because the cost of sending a million pieces of e-mail is essentially
>the same as sending a dozen, spammers can make money." End users frequently
>belittle the spam problem, saying it's just a nuisance.
>
>http://www.internetweek.com/breakingNews/INW20021219S0003

Bill,
I'm working out how the Tragedy of the Commons principle relates to the
following hoax, which I just received from a colleague's address, with
dozens of recipients' addresses as Cc. I immediately replied to all (from
all corners of the globe) telling them it is a hoax. Then I get this
message from the original victim...

Phil,
I have deleted it. What should I do?
Suchada

Are we talking costs here? This is not the same as adding another head of
cattle to the common.

Phil

Now to try to help my colleague undo the damage.

Phil

----------

• Next message: Phil Chappell: "The Hoax"
• Previous message: Peter Smagorinsky: "for what it's worth....."
• In reply to: Bill Barowy: "SPAM and the tragedy of the commons"
• Next in thread: Phil Chappell: "The Hoax"
• Reply: Phil Chappell: "The Hoax"
• Reply: Bill Barowy: "Virus hoaxes, tragedy of the commons, motive"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 01:00:06 PST