It's a coherent opinion which makes sense, even if we don't agree with it. The claim isn't that the author is spamming, the claim is that the availability of effective spam filtering ("needs of the many") trades off against and ultimately outweighs the author's reasons for running his own small web server for his personal email ("needs of the few").
Soundness and validity are often confused in common parlance, if you attempt to interpret his comment in the best light then it seems well reasoned.
Your 'majority rule' analysis is flawed as the ability for individuals to access the internet without relying on [specific] mega corps or other major organisations serves the needs of the majority. The ultimate end of requiring people to satisfy a corporations demands before being allowed to communicate using the common means (email here) is anti-democratic, it gives too much power to those companies.
