[dantheman]

I don't think anyone is saying they don't make money off of spam, just that they shouldn't be encouraging it. If spammers had to pay full price perhaps we'd see less of it, or if not then the postal service would make more money.

[anamax]

In other words, you want the USPS to discriminate on something other than cost of delivery.

Why should we enact your preferences instead of, say, mine?

Note that it's quite possible that spam is helping to keep first class postage prices down. (Eliminating 30% of the USPS's revenue does not eliminate 30% of their costs. FWIW, I suspect that direct mail is a greater percentage of their revenue than 30%.)

While you may willing to pay more to send USPS mail in return for getting less spam, other people probably aren't.

Which reminds me - you have gone to the very slight trouble of the first two steps listed at http://www.epa.gov/region1/communities/stop_spam.html , right?

[_delirium]

If there were no bulk-mail discount, though, there'd be no way to get them to follow the USPS's constraints. The discount is what gets them to presort their mail, put bar codes on it, etc.

[derefr]

Why not the stick, instead of the carrot? Make any bulk mailer that doesn't follow the rules guilty of abusing federal communications channels, similar to how we prosecute people who are misusing radio spectrum today.

We make things corporations do illegal all the time; it doesn't hurt corporate feelings, unlike restricting the rights of individuals. (And individuals, as far as I know, don't bulk-mail.) What would be the downside to this?

[Retric]

I think most people would be fine if there was a 5% discount for bulk mail, however they cut it way more than that.