[SpamCop-List] Re: WSJ profiles Spammer's dream customer

[Philippe Verdy]

I posted this mail to the writer of the article in the WSJ:

---

To: <mylene(dot)mangalindan(at)wsj(dot)com>
Subject: Your article: No Day Is Complete Without Spam
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:21:36 +0100

Is the Wall Street Journal ready to endorse Spamming as a legitimate
business to make lots of profits?
Your article seems to be published only to demonstrate that, as spam may
interest some people that want it and are ready to buy from them, it should
not be forbidden, even if that business breaks other business.

Let's repeat that spam is a very unfair commercial practice that makes money
by getting lots of recipients very hangry about them, as they loose the
legitimate emails they want to receive to perform their daily work or
leisure.

Spam (I should say UCE) is killing lots of work hours, and ruins lots of
small ISPs that can't cope with the always incresed need for more bandwidth,
and more storage space for their users. UCE steals lots of money by abusing
network resources. Final dot.

Please publish an article about the real cost of spam on profitable
networks, that the WSJ should better support, than those deadly spamgangs
that use all illegal practices to disguise their action with faked or stolen
identities, and nearly constantly steal the money of the candidate
customers, which have nobody to ask for their undelivered or bad quality
products.

If you don't, we will campaign so that there will be a three day action to
stop buying the WSJ and prefer other financial newspapers. Your paying
advertizers will appreciate... If you can tolerate spam (which is unpaid
advertizement) then how can you request money for your advertizing partners
in the paper and in your online web site?

--- An outraged user.

Note that I seldomly bought the WSJ or some of its online articles, now I
will stop doing that, until you publish an article showing how much money
spam is costing to ISPs, and how it ruins its profits by requiring them to
finance always expanding Abuse Desk teams, and also by requiring them to
keep an increasing reserve to finance legal actions against spammers.

My response will be seen in the SpamCop.net newsgroup.