1) EXCUSES FROM SPAMMERS

a. Anti-spammers are anti-commercialists

Many of us are involved in Internet business. That's why we desire to protect it from spam that clogs systems up and causes the recipients unjust costs.


b. Just hit delete

My time is not free. If you want me to keep deleting your spam instead of having you disconnected, pay me for my time. Alternatively, stop spamming.


c. Junk postal mail is OK so spam is OK too

Junk postal mail costs money for the sender. Spam costs almost nothing to the sender. Internet users shouldn't have to pay to receive junk they don't want.


d. I am not doing anything illegal

Spam is already illegal in many places. Furthermore, you are most likely violating your service providers TOS and can therefore be disconnected.


e. You are violating my First Amendment rights

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to government insitutions, not private organizations. And even if it did apply to private property, the freedom of speach is superceded by the freedom not to listen (i.e. not to receive junk you dont want).


f. There are more important things to do than anti-spamming

It's still more important and useful than spamming. In their own way, anti- spammers help keep the Internet from turning into a marketing wasteland.


g. Anti-spammers are hurting small business that can't afford traditional advertising

Businesses that are based on abusive marketing practices and exploiting private property don't belong in a fair marketplace.


h. Stop whining and "remove" yourself and the mailings will stop

See here why opt-out can never work. Also, spammers are more likely to sell confirmed addresses to other spammers than remove them.


i. This is not spam, it's an important announcement/non-profit mailing

Spam is decided not on content or purpose but quantity and consent. If it's sent out in bulk and without prior permision, it's spam.


2) EXCUSES FROM MAINSLEAZE

a. "Double" opt-in is too difficult

Not if it's done properly. BTW, there is no double opt-in, without proper confirmation you have no way of proving that people really opted in.


b. MAPS has are self-appointed vigilantes and should be stopped

MAPS are publishing an objective list of spam sources and spam supporters. As such they are protected by free speech principles from libel charges.


c. It's not spam if it's targeted

Spam isn't about content, it's about consent. If you send out bulk email without prior consent, it's spamming no matter what the mail is about.


d. We don't spam, we offer a legitimate service

That does not make it any less spam. You are still engaged in unethical marketing practices, theft by conversion and tresspass to chattel.


e. No Internet marketing laws should be passed, the industry should be self-regulated

Self-regulation doesn't work when marketers have little incentive to refrain from abusive marketing practices. As long as there are no laws, spammers can just say "piss off, we aren't doing anything illegal and we'll keep doing it".


3) EXCUSES FROM SPAMHAUSEN

a. The spam didn't come from our network, we just host their website

You are still getting paid by spammers and they use your services to aid in abusing the net. As such, you owe it to your peers to disconnect the spammers.


b. We can't legally disconnect spammers

Most ISP's enforce strong terms of service that allow them to cut service to spammers. It's a perfectly valid and necessary method of self-protection.


c. They don't spam, they sell perfectly legal bulk email software

Bulk email vendors benefit by aiding in net abuse. Their "business" directly encourages spamming. You owe it to your peers to disconnect them.


d. We don't send spam, it was relayed through us

There are no excuses to run open mail relays anymore, and they should be closed ASAP. Roaming users must be authenticated by SMTP-Auth or POP-Before-SMTP.


4) EXCUSES FROM JOURNALISTS AND PRIVACY ADVOCATES

a. Speech on the Internet should be free

Nothing guarantees free speech on the Internet - most communication is carried on privately owned networks. Their owners have full control over that traffic.


b. ISP's that filter web or mail are censoring

The ISP's own those networks. It's between them and their customers to decide what traffic will be accepted. Censorship can only be performed by the government.

---

If you disagree with my reasoning or want to suggest something be added here, give me a note (as long as it's not spam). I can be contacted at postmaster@nukespam.org.