Thursday, January 22, 2004
spam is not SPAM®
Have you noticed how well the fed's laws on spam are doing these days? I can honestly say my spam has increased since then. I have one account that is getting upwards of 200-300 spams a day. That is the account I use for most of my online info, so I guess it's to be expected. I have a couple of other accounts that don't get anywhere near that amount of spam.
A couple of thoughts about spam. One, is that obviously I hate it. But I'm not sure who I blame for it the most. The spammers out there are reprehensible, however, they only do it for a profit. Somewhere there is a bunch of idiots who actually read spam and what's even worse, act on it.
How completely brain addled can you be people?!?!? Do you really think that a company who is sending an e-mail to you (on the rare occasion your address is in the To: block) and can't spell free or mortgage without resorting to ** and ^^ is really to be trusted?
Are you so absolutely bereft of common sense that you will actually send money to one of these jokers? Nothing that is sold from a misspelled, badly written e-mail can in any way add hair to your head, inches to your p3n1s, or $30,000,000 from Nigerian politicians to your wallet. Quit answering these idiots.
So yes, I do hate spammers, however I hate even more the idiots who keep spamming a profitable business.
By the way, SPAM® is a food (so I've been told) product of the Hormel® company while spam is a communications (so I've been told) that is unwanted. Got it? You can eat SPAM® and only read spam.
addendum (01-23): I just looked at 110 spams in one of my accounts. I've noticed that the latest trend seems to be gibberish in the subject lines. Are there really people who are that stupid or hard up to read a message with a virtually random collection of letters for a subject and then reply to it?
2fers: SPAM® and spam
