Alan Ralsky Gripes About Can Spam Act
fdiskne1 writes "The New York Times has an interview with Alan Ralsky, commonly known as the world's worst spammer. CNet News.com is running the same interview. Ralsky admits using open relays and virus-infected PCs and not honoring unsubscribe lists. He complains about having to comply with the new CAN-SPAM law will cost him an additional $3000 in costs to set up a genuine opt-out list. Anyone here feel sorry for him? Okay, I'm biased, but I can't wait until we see him in prison."
Well, ok maybe he doesn't deserve death. But he definitely deserves a very hefty fine and prison cell with Bubba.
I can't wait to see him wresting bread crusts from sea gulls in a K Mart parking lot. He's an excellent example of a selfish individual and capitalism at its worst.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Spammers are stupid
+
Ralsky is a pammer
=
Ralsky is stupid
Ralsky is stupid
+
Ralsky says "it would be stupid to violate" [the law]
=
Ralsky will violate the law
But I'll bet you'd figured that out anyway.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
From that description it sounds like he's a pretty damn good spammer. The world's worst spammer is probably some guy trying to send spam through his AOL account.
- New e-mail
- Paste address
- Paste body
- Send e-mail
- Dismiss popup ad
- New e-mail
- etc etc
- Profit!
No, I think ol' Alan is good at what he does. Of course that's like arguing who was the best serial killer...