Slashdot Mirror
HOWTO: Annoy a Spammer
Bob writes "I think everyone by now has heard of the millionaire spammer Alan Ralsky. Here's a follow-up to the previous story. It seems that since the story was posted, people have signed him up for every advertising campaign and mailing list out there. And he doesn't like it." They're talking about this Slashdot story.
Im spamming you all to make me a druglord! By sending you here...
at least I think thats how many Dos methods exist at this point.
8==> o
Karma: Censored (mostly affected by decency laws)
!you a bad coward!
I found my inner child, then I got caught abusing it...
404 error
the organism you are looking for can not be found
the organism may be experiencing technical difficulty or large volumes of mail traffic
(Enforcing the 404 compliance standard for all heavily spammed out sites.)
Karma: Censored (mostly affected by decency laws)
This physical reverse spamming is really the ultimate in passive-aggressiveness, and should not be supported.
... it is not yet illegal, and nobody has any right to interfere with this guy's physical mail service because they are so upset about clicking "delete" on messages they don't want. By sending him tonnes of physical mail, nothing is accomplished. Not only that, there are many downsides. To wit:
Look, I recognize that Ralsky might not be someone you'd invite to dinner. I recognize that spam is annoying. I fully realize that it is unsolicited garbage.
But come on people
1. It is environmentally irresponsible in the extreme. All that paper is being wasted because you don't like clicking a mouse 20 more times a day? Seems more than a little selfish.
2. It is in fact illegal. Impersonating someone else in order to sign them up to receive mail is mail fraud.
3. It is a waste of the time and resources of the companies that send out the spam and the people who have to deliver it. Ever think of them? Why should the reverse spammers have the right to use companies' resources and the resources of the public postal service to further their own agenda? Isn't this just what you accuse Ralsky of doing when he "steals bandwidth"?
4. It is a disproportionate response. Because you have to delete some emails each day that takes you all of a few minutes, the appropriate response is to totally shut down one particular spammer's ability to read his own relevant physical mail by ensuring he must sift through thousands of pieces each day? That is absurd.
5. It is totally ineffective. If you have a complaint about receiving spam, take it up with your elected officials. THEY are the ones to stop it. So long as money can be made in this entirely legal business, no matter how annoying it is, there will always be someone who spams. If not Ralsky, then someone else. So even stopping Ralsky (which this surely will not do) does nothing to stop spam, because there will always be someone to deliver a message that a company is paying to have delivered.
And finally, about the comments regarding the "spammer's lawyer" being some low form of life, just remember that everyone in free nations under the rule of law has the right to legal representation. If we ever get to a point in our society where an individual's right to be heard in court (and make no mistake, you cannot effectively represent yourself in court) is judged in advance by the public on the moral value we perceive their case to have, then I don't want to be living in that society.
So to sum, get off your soapboxes and high horses before you all break your necks. This isn't pretty, it isn't effective, and it isn't ethical, no matter how much you may titter away at seeing someone you dislike punished.
~ M