Posted 10:37 PM by Floyd

Evan Kirchoff is back and has some good blog posts. However I feel impelled to question his assertion, while discussing a proposed spam-fighting email tax, that a spam mailing has a response rate of 1%. Does this include the people who click on the "remove" link in the misguided hope that this will prevent future mailings (while actually they are adding themselves to more "opt-in" links)? And what about those who don't realize that the "Reply-To" is forged and write a nasty reply telling the sender to get off their backs?

Evan wraps up his post with an impassioned plea directed at those who are tempted to consummate commerce for a larger penis, working at home, or a slice of a Nigerian fortune:

Don't buy anything, and don't ever click on anything in a spam, whether it says "remove me" or "free nude teen girls". Anything that somebody would send you as spam, no matter how effectively it targets your most secret erotic or home-refinancing desires, is widely available through other Internet venues.

But what if home refinancing is your most secret erotic desire? Such people can hardly be expected to refuse, and we spam-haters must be kind enough to give them an exemption.