Article Title: The Spam Debacle
Author: Dave Franzwa
Copyright: Jan - 2004 (Revised Oct - 2004)

The Spam Debacle

It seems that everybody and their mother has weighed in on this topic, and I felt that not enough has been said, so here is my 3 1/2 cents-worth (inflation ya'know :-)...

True spam is truly bad.

Simple enough statement, but what does it really mean?  Just what is true spam?

True spam is unsolicited commercial email (UCE), generally blasted out thousands at a time, from what's often called a bullet-proof server that basically is cloaked so well that there is no way of determining who's responsible for sending it.

They use security holes in personal and small business servers, commandeering them so that it looks as though that business or individual sent it out.

These spammers are not only capable, but do in fact send out millions upon millions of UCE to any and every email address they can wrap their scripts around.  If they weren't making sales, they wouldn't be sending it.  Even though their ratio of sales made to emails sent is probably very low, when you're dealing with kazillions of addresses, over and over again, the money is apparently worth it.

Therein lies the problem.  Consumers want and even purchase the products or services sent by spammers, even though they disapprove of the means used to advertise them.

A few things spammers are doing very effectively, are:

1. Giving internet marketing a bad rap.



2. Clogging up servers and in boxes with unwanted, and more importantly, unasked for mail.



3. Laying the blame on someone else (especially if they're using someone else's server).



4. Causing tremendous emotional stir.

As it stands, we have four sides of this equation to consider:

1. The spammers - Unscrupulously sending this crap out with no regard as to who gets hurt, even though they're not supposed to.  Referred to by anti-spam advocates as "bottom feeders."



2. John & Jane Q. Public - Average folks who receive the barrage or UCE aimed at them day in and day out, promising everything from enlarged body parts, to health, wealth, and probably the fountain of youth.  Add to that mail from the sleazier side of the net, and you've got the makings of what could be called an internet Molotov cocktail.



3. The responsible internet marketer - Usually a small business enterprise made up of from one to a few individuals, all trying to play by the rules, but unfortunately being penalized for it.



4. The elitist, anti-spam fanatics - Self proclaimed judge, jury, and executioners of anyone that is accused of spamming, whether there is proof or not, and whether there is vindicating evidence or not.

A Look at the Process

Let's say a consumer is cruising along the internet, not looking for anything in particular, and they come across an article that interests them.  They find that they relate well with what the author has to say, and would like to know a little more about him/her, so they click on the link provided in the signature file.  That takes them to the author's web site where there is a sign-up form to be placed on a mailing list for either a newsletter, or a series of periodic articles.

No one is forcing them to fill out the form.  They do it because they're interested enough to want more information from the author.  It's their choice.  The author has placed the appropriate messages in their site informing the visitor that they may be exposed to ads, either in-house or third-party, which may lead them to spend some money.

Again, it's their choice to opt-in to the list.

The anti-spam fanatics even brand opt-in messages as spam, and those who practice it as spammers.

Although newsletter opt-in lists are not typically food for "bottom feeders," the anti-spam fanatics feel they can justify sacrificing the legitimate marketers in order to get to the bottom feeders.

How very nice.

There are those, unfortunately, who practice opt-in in principle, but actually do participate in spam.  They purchase a list of addresses from some unscrupulous list broker who promotes them as "opt-in", yet they are nothing of the sort.  Without so much as a second look at the source, or the slightest bit of investigation into the collection methods of the broker, they set up a campaign and push the button.

Ill-conceived and poorly written legislation, has forced legitimate marketers into placing information in their mailings which are the very triggers that cause anti-spam software filters to sensor their mail.

Call me ignorant if you will (I heard that), but when someone has asked to receive information from someone else, what right has a third-party got to put their noses into the mix, second-guessing the validity of the content exchanged, and delete it without cause?

That's not only censorship, that's infringement upon America's 2nd amendment right to free speech.  The last time I looked, that was still illegal. &nbs;Furthermore, when they themselves hide behind bullet-proof servers, with no means of contact, playing God, in my estimation they've crossed the line and gone over the edge.

There often comes a time when those claiming to know what's best for others become vigilantes, taking the law into their own hands.

Talk about "bottom feeders..."

It's time, and well past it, that legitimate marketers unite and fight for the freedoms that so many who have gone before us have died for.

Words really do mean things and freedom really does cost something.

This tirade is over for now, but will more than likely re-surface.

I need a shower!