Spamming is UNETHICAL. By spamming people you are stealing. You are stealing time and you are stealing bandwidth. I once read an article about a company that distributes software that will ping the servers of known spamers. If enough people use the software eventually the spamers own bandwidth will be eaten up and then they won't be able to spam others. Thus Spaming The Spamers. Is this Ethical?
2006-08-09 12:48:17 · 7 answers · asked by Dallas M 2 in Computers & Internet ➔ Security
I'd call it futile.
If the address is bogus, it doesn't get through; if it's real, you've told them you've gotten through and they will spam you even more.
I don't know that I believe this software, but if it works, then I would have no ethical problem with it. They (voluntarily, and wrongly) opened themselves up to your spamming back.
Theft of time is not quite a crime, so you aren't doing anything wrong.
Spammers interfere with people going about their lives, and therefore, it's wrong. You are preventing that, and so are not doing wrong.
2006-08-09 12:57:15 · answer #1 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like a great idea, but some spammers have antispamming technologies, which is why you can't return their emails back at them. I mean, to really be a great spammer, you have to know the best antispamming techie stuff so you can find a way around it. Ethical..well, get all philosophical about it and begin with "What is ethical, really?" while you aim your antispammer spammer at them, and move on to such questions as "What is right and wrong? Is it all relative? What about the greater good?" and aim your antispammer spammer at another spammer...keep this up until you can definitively answer the philosophical questions. This way your life will be so much better.
2006-08-09 19:55:55 · answer #2 · answered by Iamstitch2U 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why?
(1) most spammers fake a return address so spamming back to the address in the original message is pointless.
(2) If your spam is deleted automatically, why do you expect them not to do the same?
There are email services (i.e. Bluebottle) that automatically respond to an unrecognized message requesting identification. In the case of spam, no identification message is received, so the mail is sent to the junk folder. End of Spam.
2006-08-09 20:02:11 · answer #3 · answered by kittybriton 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ethical, yes. Effective, no.
Much spam nowadays comes not from known servers, but from botnets of computers of ordinary computer owners, whose machines have been infected with the express intent of turning them into spam-bots, unknown to the owner.
Spammers often move from server to server anyway. With Chinese servers charging only $1000 per month to send out 7 million spam mails per DAY, it is definitely a buyers market!
2006-08-09 20:00:50 · answer #4 · answered by jibberjabbar 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you kidding? It is ethical to skin them alive, and sell the organs of their children to pay for the costs they rack up for you. Heck Yeah it's ethical to spam spammers!
2006-08-09 19:53:07 · answer #5 · answered by JASON C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
spamming itself is illegal, and spamming the spammer makes it a lovely idea, but not legal.
besides, the addresses used for spamming are "stolen" addresses nevertheless, so you would spam the innocent.
2006-08-10 09:29:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
probably not ethical but it sure would be nice to give them a taste of their own medicine :)
2006-08-09 19:52:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋