Re: (OT) Is retaliation ethical if a spam source can be identified beyond a reasonable doubt?

It is just not worth the bother.

Put in a rule in your anti-spam software to silently delete their messages and never ever answer to a "unsubscribe me" address. It will identify your e-mail address as active and yourself as someone reading spam-messages. Hence your e-mail address advertised itself for continuing attention from spammers. My wife did so once and within days her in box overflowed with emails advertising matters for which she was physically not equipped to take advantage of.

CountZero

A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

Comment on Re: (OT) Is retaliation ethical if a spam source can be identified beyond a reasonable doubt?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: (OT) Is retaliation ethical if a spam source can be identified beyond a reasonable doubt? by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Jul 16, 2008 at 23:26 UTC
First I'm with everyone: don't. It's a can of worms and most of what you could do that would hurt would probably be illegal. It is just not worth the bother Second, what bother? This is Perl, my Count. I DoSed a phishing site once that ticked me off (they sent mail to my n00b grandmother) with a one-liner that took 1/5th as long to write as this post.	[reply]
Re^2: (OT) Is retaliation ethical if a spam source can be identified beyond a reasonable doubt? by leocharre (Priest) on Jul 16, 2008 at 21:31 UTC
That's a very interesting deduction there. I've been handling spam incredibly well as of late, it's rare that one actually makes it through, that's why I was so curious!	[reply]