I've always been against lawsuits for profit. Hearing it that way, I'm sure most people would feel the same way. But what about when it's a guy suing a spammer? It's a just cause, right? Who doesn't hate spam? Well, what about if the guy makes a habit out of suing spammers such that he might even earn a living doing it?
That's looking like what Mark Mumma, a website manager from Oklahoma City, is doing. He started SUEaSpammer.com, and has a running list of companies he plans to sue, some for upwards of a million dollars. I agree that spam is a problem which must be stopped, but when "damages" are awarded, tabulated according to formulae unbeknownst to me, why should they be awarded to him any more so than to the others who've received spam from the sued company? And are the companies who are sued the true criminals, or does the fault lie with the marketing companies they employ and the programmers who write mass-mailing applications?
There's been a lot of progress in our country in fighting the spam problem - I've even coded a spambot killer of my own - but something about Mumma's approach just doesn't feel right.
IMO, the age-old question applies: Are you looking for justice or are you looking for revenge? My own corollary to this is another question - Are justice and revenge ever the same thing?
From what little I've read about Mr. Mumma's activities, I do not believe they will have any deleterious effect on spam. Since he does potentially stand to make some money from all this litigation, what Mr. Mumma is doing can be regarded using the court system to establish a revenue stream.
While I do not agree that "a lot of progress" has been made fighting spam, I do agree with Greg that what Mumma is doing just feels wrong.