I don't need another credit card. Nor do I need a university diploma, nor am I about to give my bank account details to a Nigerian bank official to deposit the millions of dollars he is trying to get out of the country; and nor, putting all modesty aside, am I in need of enlargement.
Although the inbox of my Hotmail account, creaking under the weight of junk e-mails, might suggest otherwise.
According to Jupiter Research, American e-mail users will find 319 billion unsolicited messages in their inboxes this year, more than double the 140 billion sent in 2001.
The near-exponential growth will mean that each internet user will be getting more than 3,900 pieces of junk e-mail a year by 2007, Jupiter estimates.
It already accounts for 70% of the e-mails passing through servers of America Online.
Neither is spam these days confined to personal e-mail. Spammers have begun collecting e-mail addresses from company computer systems, causing corporations to spend $20bn this year alone to try to defend their staff and their networks.
The stunning growth of junk e-mails, and the offensive nature of much of the material, has begun to attract the attention of Silicon Valley companies eyeing a bonanza in junk mail-blocking software. It has also begun to attract the attention of regulators and politicians on both sides of the Atlantic.
The ability to block spam has become the prime selling point for Microsoft and America Online in the new versions of their internet service providers. AOL, MSN and Yahoo! in April announced a joint initiative to develop new technical standards.
But aware of the concerns that spam could throttle one of the key attributes of the internet, they are also stepping up their legal efforts to stem the tide of junk mail. Last week, Microsoft announced that it had filed lawsuits against 15 spammers in America and Britain. It said the companies it was pursuing were responsible for more than two billion junk e-mails and has also filed suits against more than a dozen spammers who generated eight million complaints.
Federal legislation is now finding its way through the senate. A committee last week approved a bill making it illegal for anyone to use fraudulent or deceptive e-mail addresses, fake e-mail headers or use false subject lines.
Unsolicited mail will be allowed but the message must contain a clear opt-out if the bill is eventually passed. It would also force marketers to put "advertisement" in the subject line and include a physical mailing address.
But there are growing fears that the legislation will do little to prevent nuisance spammers while killing off legitimate use of e-mail as a marketing communication.
Even as Microsoft was launching its lawsuit, the software company was testifying against a proposed state law in California, that would force businesses to get permission from internet users before sending any kind of communication.
Similar proposals are contained in the European directive on privacy and electronic communications expected to be implemented at the end of October.
In Britain, the Advertising Standards Authority is also introducing similar self-regulation. But forcing users to "opt-in" will do little to deter rogue spammers and likely curtail legitimate businesses. The worst offenders are experts at hiding their tracks and often operate in other parts of the world not beholden to British or American law.
Something clearly has to be done to legislate against spam. But legitimate advertisers and marketers have to make sure they are not tarred with the same brush. A senior Microsoft executive recently warned against "throwing the baby out with the bath water" and said the company was not yet ready to give up on "commercial e-mail as a legitimate means of marketing."
With the fury that spam has sparked among consumers and the reaction of politicians, it might be too late.