Sometimes I can't understand human nature. Two weeks ago, people (especially TypePad bloggers) were cursing Blue Security. Those morons! How could they have been so stupid to take down all of Six Apart? My blog was down for 9 hours, damn them to hell!

Well, now they are gone and people are sad. It kind of feels like a funeral for a real scumbag. High profile bloggers like Techdirt [1], Dan Gillmor [2], even my pal Martin McKeay [3] gave similar eulogies - "Well they sucked, but we're sad to see them go." Give me a break. This sentiment just doesn't resonate with me. Though if they have free beer at the wake, I'm in!

To clarify my point, let's draw an analogy to one of my favorite topics - drug dealers. Does anyone care if one drug dealer kills another? Maybe the guy's family, but other than that - probably not. Blue Security's model was to try to take down the drug dealers by giving them more drugs. Didn't think of it that way did you?

Two wrongs don't make a right. My Mom taught me that one pretty early on. Blue Security was spamming the spammers and even if they were successful in taking down a few, 10 others would pop up in their wake.  Just like drug dealers. Take down one and 10 others fight over the vacated street corner.

So what's the answer to stopping spam? The sad truth is that to have ANY impact on the amount of spam out there we need to address the root cause of the issue - the economic incentive to spam. As long as people buy stuff from those unsolicited messages, spam will happen. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. Vigilantes (like the late Blue Security) are not going to repeal the laws of economics.

Getting back to my drug analogy, Nancy Reagan was right. Just say no! But as long as some folks say yes, we are fighting a losing battle. Blue Security's model was wrong from the start, so them going away was their inevitable end game. Don't kid yourself. Sure the spammers accelerated their demise, but at least it gave them an opportunity to go out in a blaze of glory.