In doing my research every week, I’ve been noticing more and more stories about spammers.
They’re lately trying to come “out of the closet” to defend what they’re doing (you know: pump incredible amounts of vile garbage into your email inbox). They go to huge efforts to mask the true source of their mail and do everything possible to get past filters set up to stop them. Meaning, of course, that they absolutely disregard your clear desire to not get their junk mail. How disgustingly arrogant!
Yet they want people to know what they’re doing is “not illegal” (in most places, perhaps), is “free speech” (just like throwing rocks with notes attached through your windows is “free speech”) and is just them “trying to make a living” (try working, you slimeballs!)
Anyway, the Detroit Free Press recently ran a story on one spammer who was showing off his new $740,000 house that spam built. He was so smug that apparently a lot of his victims had enough: armed with information about the location of his new house, his address got posted online — and this scum of the earth started getting mail. Lots and lots of mail. Catalogs, magazines, junk and more junk.
Turnabout is Fair Play
Can the leech see the irony of it? Nope: “They’ve signed me up for every advertising campaign and mailing list there is,” he whined to the Free Press. “These people are out of their minds. They’re harassing me.” All together now: “Awwwwww!“
When you get 20-30 advertisements per week (or, in my case, per day — and those are just the ones that get past my filters), don’t you feel harassed? Yet he says he is a victim — and is going to SUE! Incredible.
Bottom line: spamming should be a crime, not something to be proud of. While I’m gleeful that he’s getting a good taste of his own medicine, I can’t say I approve of catalog merchants and magazine publishers being used to victimize him — they’re yet another class of innocent victims of the Spam Wars.
– – –
My own site to learn about spam — and how to get control of your own inbox — is Spam Primer.
No, I’m not going to supply his name/address: two wrongs don’t make a right. And to answer the other common question: the newspaper’s story is no longer online, so I’ve removed the link. Sad how so many newspapers don’t understand the value of old content.