Re[2]: 1/3d "Concealed"?

[kshugarman@gph.com (Keith D Shugarman)]

  Prof. Ward
  
  So does spamming increase the incremental cost is the initial participation 
  and the decrease the output and (network) value of the list?  If so is this 
  an external cost of spamming?
  
  Keith
  
  
  ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
  Subject: Re: 1/3d "Concealed"?
  Author:  ward1@ux6.cso.uiuc.edu at INTERNET
  Date:    10/21/97 12:03 PM
  
  
  Possibly spam avoidance.  Spammers often mine discussion group lists to 
  develop lists of email addresses.  I subscribe to two lists whose 
  listservers do not permit subscribers to uncover the names and email 
  addresses of subscribers for just this reason.  Since posters reveal 
  themselves, this only protects lurkers.
  
  Mike Ward
  
  At 11:20 AM 10/21/1997 -0400, you wrote:
  >        This list now has 156 subscribers--with 105 of them "non-concealed" 
  >and 51 "concealed."
  >
  >        Who would want to "conceal" their membership in this list?  Is there 
  >something subversive about it that can be hazardous to one's career?
  >
  >        Charles Mueller, Editor
  >        ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW
  >        http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller        
  >
  >
  >
  ---------------------------------------------------------------- 
  Michael R. Ward                                   (217) 244-5667 
  Dept. of Ag. and Consumer Econ.                   ward1@uiuc.edu 
  University of Illinois          http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/ward1