On Thu, 9 Feb 1995, Dan Zerkle wrote:
 
>     The most just thing to then do would be to have each person e-mail
>     in a request for a packet, but to a ficticious address.  This will
>     assure that the cost of reaching actual potential clients will be
>     very high because of all the packets they mail to non-clients.  With
>     the fictitious addresses, they will know that these were not
>     received instead of thinking that they were successful because
>     they got so many responses.
 
Winship <[log in to unmask]> replies:
 
>Hmm, you may be liable for mail fraud with this, I don't really know,
>but its a possibility (I never trust gov. agencies further than I can
>throw them).
 
Dan has the right idea, but why a fictitious address?  Play the game
their way.  Send them a perfectly realistic request for information to
your real addresses (no mail fraud either--how can anyone prove that you
weren't really interested?).  Send it on a postcard if
possible, so that they can't just reply via e-mail, but also send by
e-mail, fax, and phone call, if you have the patience.  Here's a sample:
 
"Dear Sirs, I would like a Green Card but am afraid that my poor credit
rating will keep me from getting one.  Please send me all the literature
you can."
 
But don't use a fictitious address--string them along.  Let the
realization come sl.o.o.o.wly, that they've been had...when 10,000
packages go out in the mail...and only 2 customers show up...along
with 100,000 more requests for information.
 
If they got a million of these (not farfetched at all--just ask Craig
Shergold...) _and had no way of knowing which ones were real_ what could
they do?  Send out a million packages in the mail?  Make 1,000,000 phone
calls?
 
They claim that the flak they get is worth it because the few legitimate
reponses make it profitable.  You can't stop the legitimate responses--but
you _can_ make it economically prohibitive (if even logistically
possible) for them to _find_ the legitimate responses.  Then their
economic return becomes negative, and the activity ceases (at least by
those who do it for an economic incentive).  Q.E.D.
 
>From now on, my standard response to a spam will be to write back to the
address provided, saying, "Yes, I am very interested, please tell me
more.  But ... [insert complicated question that will require at least
several minutes of work on the part of the recipient to respond to.]"
Kill them with [feigned] kindness!
 
Shahrukh Merchant
[log in to unmask]