The question of spamming involves establishing proper behavior with a new
technology.  We don't indulge in telemarketing practices to advance our
pet causes, for instance, not so much because of laws preventing it,
though some countries have them, but because we know we'll be pissing off
an enormous number of people.  So you have to ask which individuals are
doing the most damage to establishing the expectation that e-mail not be
used for unsolicited mass communication.  I believe that these are the
persistant and aggressive spammers, not the kids pulling pranks.  There
are only a few individuals who have been spamming for years now and are
still at it.  These people are establishing a right to spam just by their
persistance and system administrators' reluctance to block them.  They are
not necessarily providing an advertising service, like Kevin Lipsitz who
spams for his own profit.
 
There's also the more recent appearance of businesses, like Promo
Enterprises and their many imitators, that are establishing that the
receivers must opt out of mailing lists by unsubscribing themselves.
This could be the greater danger since most people will feel that they've
taken care of the issue by taking "advantage" of the spammers
"opportunity".  There'll be fewer people who feel the need to protest to
the service providers.   There should be no right established of advertisers
to subscribe people to their lists.  Subscribing to "information lists"
should be by opting in, not opting out.
 
Mike Holloway
[log in to unmask]