On Tue, 9 Jul 1996 12:01:41 -0700, Ruben Botello wrote:
>>>I've been in touch with my Congressman <snip>
>>> I found that>Congressional staffs are aware there's a problem because so
>>many bozos >send
>>>blanket mail to everyone in Congress that their mail system has been set to
>>>simply filter (sometimes with an explanation) mail from any host/domain not
>>>identifiable as from the Congressperson's home district. >
>>>/s Murphy A. Sewall <[log in to unmask]>      (860) 486-2489 voice
>>------------------
>>I know this doesn't really relate to this list, but I find this practice
>>*very* disturbing.
>>Lynn Richardson, PhD (in political science!)
>        To limit our participation in our democratic form of government via
>the Internet, as Mr. Sewall proposes is not only censorship, but oppressive.
 
WHOA!  I didn't PROPOSE anything.  I *did* REPORT what is actually
happening, and it would be far more helpful to give some thought about WHY
it is happening rather than flaming in random directions.
 
Think about the problem from the receiving end.  Congressional offices
handle huge amounts of paper mail--most of it junk and easily identified as
such.  Congressional staffers have developed procedures for counting the
number of Xerox'd or otherwise duplicated copies of paper mail without even
opening most of it.  Even so, handling all that paper mail is costly.
 
At least with paper mail, those who want to blanket the entire Congress
have to pay for hundreds of stamps.  Email simply floods the House and
Senate mail hosts.  As long as any doofus with simple software can send
duplicate mail to hundreds or millions, the logical consequence is a volume
of redundant communication beyond reason.  We are approaching a situation
where the cost of dealing with the flood isn't the issue; it simply ain't
possible.
 
One might WISH to think of a member of Congress as representing the whole
nation, but such a view is fundamentally naive.  The Constitution provides
for re-election by a very limited constituency, and the practical reality
is that politicians largely (not entirely) pander to that constituency (to
do otherwise is to become an idealistic ex-office holder).  Tip O'Neill had
it right "All politics is local."
 
I have long (vocally) favored regulatory limits on massive emailing (in the
form of potential fines for email abuse) precisely because negative
consequence such as filtering legitimate email have long been foreseeable.
 
For now, it *might* occur to you that if you REALLY have something
important to convey to Congresspeople outside your district (such as
complaining about their mail filters), isn't it worth a 32 cent stamp?
 
/s Murphy A. Sewall <[log in to unmask]>      (860) 486-2489 voice
   Professor of Marketing                          (860) 456-7725 fax
   http://mktg.sba.uconn.edu/MKT/Faculty/Sewall.html