End Spam by criminalizing the purchase of their products?

[DanielXY]

And how would the police catch those criminal consumers? By sending mass "test"-spam mails and whoever answers gets a fine? Thank you very much!

[Az]

punishing the consumers? That's even more wrong that punishing the junkies.

[DanielXY]

But its for their own good!

[:) Smiley]

Like I said you're only punishing people who would order penis enlargement pills online, or access internet kiddie porn.

I'm not saying this is the most moral solution, it is merely the most practical. Carried out right, it can be quite moral as well.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asmodean
Hey guys: I bet that faded glory is a spammer. Why else would he defend them so much.

Indeed he is. He admitted to it before.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Smiley
Like I said you're only punishing people who would order penis enlargement pills online, or access internet kiddie porn.

I'm not saying this is the most moral solution, it is merely the most practical. Carried out right, it can be quite moral as well.

How can you say it's more practical? Punishing the buyers of products, so long as said products are prefectly legal, is utter nonsense. It's a complete waste of time and money to track down the indviduals who buy from spam ads (how on earth would you find this out anyway without a massive invasion of privacy). If you want to target anybody, crack down harshly on spammers.

[Shi Huangdi]

The worst kind of spammer is the porn spammer, because they often send e-mails with very explicit titles, and often children can end up getting this spam. These people should be given prison sentences if tracked, if not tracked then their sites should be demolished by cracking.

[faded glory]

im not a spammer in the true sense. I use netsend to spam. and ive already defended myself on this before. I totally tell recievers how to block netsends. I dont clog your boxes with email (as you like to claim/exagerate )


I defend it because its a legitamate form of advertising. And the only reason your against it, is because the BIG guys have told you to be against it. Spam is a threat to there money-making. One guy and a program can now reach millions for free, instead of paying millions to reach maybe 100 people on TV or Radio.

[:) Smiley]

Spam is not free. It's freeloading.

Someone else is paying for the processing power and the bandwidth used to send it.

Boris, my plan would be to set up a sting operation.

Cracking down on spammers is not practical because they would simply move overseas beyond the reach of the Feds (though perhaps we could then bust 'em as terrorists?) Make it so no one buys from spam emails, and people won't bother sending them.

[faded glory]

"Someone else is paying for the processing power and the bandwidth used to send it. "

Bull****. If John Q doesnt have to pay to send emails to his girlfriend, why should Joehasaproduct2sell?

[:) Smiley]

John Q does pay, by way of the advertising that he is shown when he sends email if he is using one of those free email servers. The advertising revenue covers the costs of his email sending and recieving.

However, Joehasaproduct2sell only generates the same amount of ad revenue for the email company, but uses 10,000 times the resources. Unless Joe wants to put up with a slew of pop-up ads with every he sends, his costs get externalized to all the other email users.

[Az]

because joehasproducts2sell is a f@$#ing spammer, and should be tarred, feathered, and hanged.

[Elok]

I see no problem with a two-cent-per-letter unsolicited e-mail tax. There would probably be clever ways around it, like joining mailing lists dedicated to other purposes and spamming them, but that's less ridiculous than paying like a dollar to pester a few thousand people you never met and who probably aren't interested in your product. Make it at least a little more difficult for them. Two cents per addressee would force the mass-mailing services to be selective about who they pestered if they wanted to keep profiting. Then we would only have to worry about forcing the spammers to overseas servers, in which case we modify our filters to block all foreign servers not on our lists. That would work fine for me.

[Az]

I have an even better idea. let limit the number of people that you can send an e-mail to at any one message, to, say, 10.

[Whaleboy]

I think the law should turn a blind eye to those that decide to "retaliate". Hack into a spammers computer or network, and fdisk them back to the 70's.