Cajun King Of Spam Stirs Pot Of Controversy
from the count-the-lies... dept
Yet another “profile of a spammer” in USA Today. This one talks to the latest “high profile spammer” Ronnie Scelson, who wants to be famous more than anything else in the world – and seems to be using his spam infamy for that purpose. Of course, like every other spammer profile, he talks about how much money he’s making and how big his house is. What’s amusing is that USA Today never seems to question any of this, even after pointing out that Scelson recently filed for bankruptcy and is $500,000 in debt. Sounds like a real success story going there. Also amusing is the quote from Alan Ralsky, the man who learned the hard way what happens when you gloat about your spamming abilities, saying that he wishes Scelson would just quiet down and keep a low profile.
Comments on “Cajun King Of Spam Stirs Pot Of Controversy”
The current issue of TECHNOLOGY REVIEW has a good article on spam and the (probably doomed) technological efforts to minimize its bad effects on us.
Spamming isn’t a technical problem; it’s a social problem. As long as there are no social controls on spamming behavior, some individuals will spam. They make money by stealing a little bit from each of us, in our time, our taxes, our telecom charges.
The answer is to establish penalties for spamming that can be enforced on individuals. The interesting thing about spam is that it always includes a trail back to the guilty parties; or else there is no benefit to the spammer or the merchant who uses him. The TR article quotes a spam-fighter to the effect that 200 individuals are responsible for nine-tenths of all spam in the world.
Publish that list. Establish social controls over those 200 scumbags by the use of moral suasion.
Ever read Eric Frank Russell’s SF novel “Wasp”? The list is long. Dirac Angestun Gesept.
The interesting thing about spam is that it always includes a trail back to the guilty parties; or else there is no benefit to the spammer or the merchant who uses him
I would hesitate to say always – at least 10% of the SPAM I receive has no links, no e-mail address (other than the forged one in the header) and no phone number. Often times there is no clue as to what the product or offering really is. Those are the ones that I really scratch my head over.