I wrote an earlier message here concerning the policy regarding the creation of objects through glitches. Torley Linden was kind enough to write back to me as follows:
As these "mutant prims" are considered to not be part of the system as we intend it to be, future changes to SL may render them broken so we would, at the least, recommend not depending on any "glitches" that aren't purposeful functionality and are subject to change.
It's also worth noting that some of these prims with certain parameters cause serious problems like crashing simulators, hence an additional reason why we advise not using them.
I would like to encourage Linden Labs to reconsider this policy, and to add code to the server side to check each prim for mutation and reset it if detected - whenever a prim's settings are altered, the server should automatically check for invalid size or mass values and reset them. Furthermore, as a general policy, the creation of any given object should not be blocked without also un-mutating all such existing objects in the world.
The reason for this is that the policy of "it might break, we don't advise it" offers potentially rich rewards to content creators for hacking the SL client. They can use a glitched or mutant object in their product, and thus gain a competitive advantage since most customers will not be aware of the fact that the object is not LL guaranteed. If it does break at a later date, they can blame LL for the fault and issue an update; it will lack the advantage that the glitch provided, but they already have the money and customer base.
Already the set of "outsize prims" has reached #1 rank on SLExchange, and therefore their creator has been rewarded for hacking the SL client to the tune of US$200 as a low estimate; for the moment, the bug fix has essentially created an LL protected monopoly. A single spy device made using Zero mass prims has earned around US$113, yet again anyone who wants to compete can't create them. The fact that the items may be deleted later on will not restore the money, and the creator can easily blame LL for the failure. Distinguishing oneself in competitive markets is one of the challenge of doing business in Second Life and a situation where willingness to hack the client becomes a powerful or essential part of this is I'm sure undesirable from the point of view of non-hacking users and Linden Research itself.
