Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Spammers Sue Anti-Spam Groups

Posted by timothy on Wed Apr 23, 2003 12:40 PM
from the slither-together-or-slither-separately dept.
SuperBanana writes "The Register reports in a story today that spammers have banded together under the name EmarketersAmerica.org to sue various anti-spam groups- days before a large conference on spam hosted by the FTC(which will be attended by many spammers). Anti-spam groups think the timing is not by coincidence, but believe the move may backfire because they will be able to countersue and get access to spammer's internal documents. By the way, if you're wondering who these guys are, check out Spamhaus's directory of top spammers."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by ih8apple (607271) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:42PM (#5791435)
    Here is what one of America's leading sports pundits has been writing:

    Elliott Harris, Chicago Sun-Times: "A fan in Massachusetts, upset at Fox's decision to replace auto racing with Red Sox baseball, faces the possibility of a year in jail for sending more than 530,000 e-mails that shut down Fox's Web site in 2001. Hey, who knew a NASCAR fan would know spam was anything other than something to eat?"
    • "A fan in Massachusetts, upset at Fox's decision to replace auto racing with Red Sox baseball, faces the

      Damn Yankees fans, I swear ...

    • Random nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SunPin (596554) <slashspam@@@cyberista...com> on Wednesday April 23 2003, @01:32PM (#5791996) Homepage
      Increasing the cost of spam should be easy...

      We know which companies sell their email listings, right?

      More than a few of us can write a script...

      A clandestine server running in an undisclosed location--perhaps a public wireless hotspot--can go forever properly filling out the forms of these companies with complete and total gibberish.

      It won't crash servers... nobody will even know until it's pretty much too late and the offended databases are loaded with utter garbage.

      Recently, I wrote about passively doing this to spambots [cyberista.com]. I keep the page [cyberista.com] on the server for good measure.

      My tech articles are geared to a nontech audience so don't give me crap if they sound lame. I don't preach to the choir except when hanging out at Slashdot.

      That said, I don't see why this concept can't be expanded. They have no defense against form scripts.

  • by Unknown Poltroon (31628) <unknown_poltroon1sp@myahoo.com> on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:42PM (#5791438)
    GREAT!!! nOw i know what organization to send the bill to for all this crap about giant penises wanting my credit card. PLus, now we all know where to forward our spam to!!! FANTASTIC!!!!
    • Funny how they keep their address hidden in a Whois lookup. Perhaps they don't want to receive spam either...
        • by kiwimate (458274) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @01:09PM (#5791753) Journal
          If you click on the link provided, you get the following message:

          Dear Customer,

          Please key in the password you see displayed to the right in order to obtain the information you requested from our WHOIS database.

          In order to protect the privacy of our customers, Go Daddy Software has implemented a process that prevents unscrupulous spammers from running scripts that acquire email addresses from our WHOIS service (which in accordance with ICANN policy must be made available to the public). The password you see is provided in graphic format and cannot be read by a script. Only humans can read it. By taking a moment to key in the password you are doing your part to eliminate SPAM.

        • by GQuon (643387) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @01:36PM (#5792038) Journal
          Well, we should protect his privacy, and not post his email then. Please don't post this link anywhere.
          mefels@aol.com [mailto]
  • Broken link (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:43PM (#5791449)
    Not a big problem but somebody forgot to throw the http:// in front of the url
    emarketersamerica.org [emarketersamerica.org]
  • by sczimme (603413) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:45PM (#5791467)
    From the article:

    A group of Florida-based porn peddlers, penis enlargement and Viagra spammers has united to file suit against anti-spam organisations.

    Given their similar, uhhh, subject matter, I guess it makes sense they would eventually form a union of some kind.

    (I meant union as in 'coalition' or similar, not any other kind. Probably best not to think too much about that one. D'oh.)
    • by blair1q (305137) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:57PM (#5791616) Journal
      >>porn peddlers, penis enlargement and Viagra spammers...united
      >I guess it makes sense they would eventually form a union of some kind.

      I'd much rather they formed an aggregate, were sealed in glass, then placed in a deep tunnel in a remote mountain.

      Let future generations worry about the "ethics" of such a punishment.
  • by BWJones (18351) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:45PM (#5791468) Homepage Journal
    Damn, and I thought these guys were dirty bastards before!

    • by BWJones (18351) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:51PM (#5791541) Homepage Journal
      So, as a followup to this, from the SPAPHAUS website "90% of all spam received by Internet users in North America and Europe is sent by a hard-core group of only 180+ individuals"

      It just goes to show how a few incredibly selfish individuals can bring chaos and ruin to society. It obviously does not take many to bring huge costs to business and government, so why is it so hard to prosecute these few individuals for abuse of the internet and indirect theft from business and government (taxpayer) coffers, especially if they are known?

  • Jerks (Score:3, Funny)

    by Whatsthiswhatsthis (466781) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:45PM (#5791471)
    Why must they soil the good name of America by appending it to their dubious business?

    eMarketersAmerica, more like eMarketersNigeria
    • Re:Jerks (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:51PM (#5791542)
      good name of America

      Hey, look, there IS still one guy who thinks the US is held in any regard worldwide. Damn, now I owe my buddy a beer.

  • Contact? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Lugor (628175) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:46PM (#5791479)
    Quick, anyone have any contact info for these people? I have penis enlargements to sell them!
  • by HughJampton (659996) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:46PM (#5791483)
    KaZaA users suing the RIAA?
    Drug users suing dealers?
    Smokers suing tobacco compani.... Oh.
  • by tmork (662252) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:47PM (#5791492)
    A list of mirrors of the text of the filing in flordia's court:

    (Spread out which ones you use, these are alot of folks with home machines on DSL lines. Being /.'ed would only make things worse:)

    http://ares.penguinhosting.net/~leftreveggplant/ fe lstein/slapp.pdf
    http://chickenboner.com/felstein /slapp.pdf
    http://cjllewellyn.homeip.net/slapp.pd f
    http://home.earthlink.net/~bbay/slapp.pdf
    http ://jscript.dk/2003/4/slapp.pdf
    http://members.cox .net/lxix/slapp.pdf
    http://members.shaw.ca/wooly/ slapp.pdf
    http://mywebpages.comcast.net/egplant/s lapp.pdf
    http://SteveSobol.com/slapp.pdf
    http:// www.acornhosting.net/spam/slapp.pdf
    http://www.bi ocenter.helsinki.fi/~atossava/spam/sl app.pdf
    http://www.conmicro.cx/slapp.pdf
    http:// www.dragonfur.org/peewee/slapp.pdf
    http://www.geo cities.com/spammersarestupididioticm orons/slapp.pdf
    http://www.linxnet.com/misc/spam/ slapp.pdf
    http://www.north-lincolnshire.com/slapp .pdf
    http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/slapp.pdf
    h ttp://www.spamblocked.com/slapp.pdf
    http://www.te chhouse.org/~lou/slapp.pdf
    http://www.tirani.net/ slapp.pdf

    There's also been some lively discussion on NANAE about this issue....
  • by Kirby-meister (574952) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:47PM (#5791493)
    ...forwarding all spam to the e-mail addresses listed at emarketersamerica.org? :P

    Assuming there are such, as it's currently being hit with a DoS. I think it's the first time a website has deserved a /.'ing.

  • Hah (Score:4, Funny)

    by superdan2k (135614) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:48PM (#5791506) Homepage Journal
    Anyone want to take bets as to when the DoS attacks begin? Secondary action: how long after the DoS ends does the site end up being 0wnz0r3d?

    Of course, for once, we'll see the Slashdot Effect put to good use. :-)
  • by SuperBanana (662181) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:49PM (#5791518)

    I found out about this from a friend(Hi Scott!) after I submitted the article. He put it best:

    "It is classic... misspellings, copy + paste problems...He named rediculous people as defendents, including the brother of one anti spammer, who apparently lives in Italy and doesn't care about spam at all."

    http://chickenboner.com/felstein/slapp.pdf

  • hmm... (Score:4, Funny)

    by frodo from middle ea (602941) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:50PM (#5791529) Homepage
    a large conference on spam hosted by the FTC(which will be attended by many spammers)
    Can we bomb them, Oh please can we bomb them ?
  • by yndrd (529288) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:50PM (#5791530) Homepage
    Do NOT register for the mailing list at www.emarketersamerica.org.
  • Offshore? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Ichijo (607641) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:50PM (#5791532) Homepage Journal
    Is it time for antispam organizations to move offshore?
  • you lazy bastards [216.239.39.100].
  • by zaqattack911 (532040) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:54PM (#5791582) Journal
    These days everybody and their dog has a lil website somewhere.

    Let's say we ditched the email concept, and messaging just involved people going to eachothers websites and dropping a note via webform. To reply, you simply click the link back to the senders message webform etc...

    Then to ensure we don't have web crawling bots auto submitting spam through the forms, you add a dynamically created GIF/jpeg file with a 5 letter code embedded that the subitter needs to type for the form to submit.

    Then, problem solved no? Christ the email protocol we've been using for the last 20years is ready for the shitter in my opinion.

    --Zuchini
  • by sparedevil (667999) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:58PM (#5791617)

    Keeping courts busy with unnecessary and pointless lawsuits, thus blocking "real" and important cases and wasting resources is its own form of spam: judicial spam!

  • by mdfst13 (664665) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @01:00PM (#5791635)
    The Spamhaus link already doesn't work (at least not for me, YMMV).

    What's really amazing isn't that spammers continue to spam but that they continue to find people who are willing to pay them to do so. Have you ever read what an email marketer considers fair results? 2% of the emails you buy will be viewed (viewed meaning that someone actually generated an http request based on the HTML inside). How do they guarantee this? If they fall short, they will .... send more emails.

    This is an amazing comment on the ineffectiveness of spam. More than 98% of all spam messages are deleted unseen (or bounced). Of the remaining 2%, some of those were only "viewed" in the sense that they had active focus when the receiver hit delete. Of those that generate actual click-through, how many generate sales?

    How stupid does someone have to be to buy an "email marketing campaign?" One could get better results by sending your $1000 to a local charity and putting out a press release.

    Spam --- built on ignorance and stupidity.
    • by BlackHawk (15529) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @03:12PM (#5793079) Journal
      • This is an amazing comment on the ineffectiveness of spam.
      Only if you don't complete the math. I haven't priced a spam-campaign, personally, but I have seen adverts for software you can "run from home" that retail for as little $75.

      So let's play a numbers game. Let's suppose I want to sell narfing-irons. I can manufacture them cheaply in India, so I have a good supply, and can make a 60% profit if I sell them for $35 a pair. I want to use a spam campaign, because I know how effective they are. I buy a service for $350, and they will send spam out to 4 million addresses. Just 2% will result in page views. That's 80,000 hits. Let's assume we get a sales rate of .5%. That's right, one-half of one percent. That's 400 sales. Or, total revenues of $14,000. Around $8000 of that is profit, from which my $350 spam-campaign is taken.

      And that was only one run of spam. If I run, say, 10 or 12 campaigns from different services, with similar rates of return, my narfing-iron business will net me in the vicinity of $80K-$100K in profit from Internet-based sales alone. And I didn't lift a finger, other than to ship the product.

      NOW do you see where they get people who will pay for this service?

  • by gosand (234100) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @01:02PM (#5791667) Homepage
    So what happens if you send an email to abuse@emarketersamerica.org ?
  • Yeah right (Score:3, Interesting)

    by quantaman (517394) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @01:03PM (#5791678)
    blacklisting IP addresses of the plaintiffs, libel, invasion of privacy, the publication of allegedly false information and "intentionally interference with a contract".


    Allright the blacklisting is allright because the user is requesting those sites to be blacklisted. Don't know about invasion of privacy (probably publishing the names and addresses), publication of false information (isn't that libel?). Finally "intentionally interference with a contract".(well at least it's spammer english:) there was never any contract in the first place and is just the user trying to avoid harassment. I'll be very surprised if this goes anywhere then again we may not have the whole story, remember the register isn't exactly an impartial newssource.
  • by GMFTatsujin (239569) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @01:05PM (#5791688) Homepage
    "If these 180 were somehow spirited off internet - we'd be left with the Nigerians, and companies spamming by mistake. The spam problem would simply disappear," he said.

    So... who's got 1,800 feet of rope and an orchard to spare?
  • by smoon (16873) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @01:07PM (#5791721) Homepage
    which will be attended by many spammers
    Now where's some of that Iraqi nerve agent when we need it?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23 2003, @01:07PM (#5791725)
    Try the asshole attorney's supporting this case. Look at the bottom of the slapp.pdf file:

    FELSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
    Attorneys for EMarketersAmerica.org, Inc.
    555 South Federal Highway, Suite 450
    Boca Raton, Florida 33432
    (561) 367-7990 Phone
    (561) 367-7980 Facsimile
    mark@EMarketersAmerica.org
    Mark E. Felstein, Esq.
    FBN: 192139

    I think we have a new address for every free cd offer, junk ad, and telemarketer list in the world.
  • by Beatbyte (163694) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @01:08PM (#5791732) Homepage
    My name is: Alan Ralsky

    Address:

    5016 Patrick Rd
    West Bloomfield, MI 48322-1543

    I REALLY NEED A PENIS ENLARGEMENT!!! PLEASE!!! I'll EVEN GIVE YOU MY CREDIT CARD NUMBER!!!!!
  • by SquadBoy (167263) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @01:09PM (#5791749) Homepage Journal
    make decks of playing cards with pictures of these guys and then do various things that I will not specify here for legal reasons to them after we find them. :)
  • by LePrince (604021) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @01:11PM (#5791782)
    Spammers sue YOU !

    Oh wait, that's the case here too... Nevermind.

  • Spam as business (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ajs (35943) <ajs@NOsPam.ajs.com> on Wednesday April 23 2003, @01:14PM (#5791811) Homepage Journal
    Think about this the next time you advocate centralizing the Net (in terms of SMTP) on large ISPs in order to "solve" the problem of residental users spewing spam (directly or by relay).

    The residential users are annoying because there are so many of them, but if, 10 years from now, the only way you can send mail is to relay through a large ISP's mail servers... who do you think said ISP's best business partners will be?

    For an answer to that question look to the US Postal Service's largest customers: The US Federal Government and bulk mailers.

    THAT is exactly the business niche that spammers are evolving into. All they need is for users to have slightly less choice and ISPs to have slightly more power to tell their users how the Internet works rather than the other way around.

    Push to keep the Internet a network of peers while establishing a system of identity, trust and responsibility (which should in turn also by non-centralized, but rooted on an arbitrary number of certificate authorities and trust databases), and you will do yourself and the rest of the world a large favor!
  • by LordYUK (552359) <jeffwright821@nOSPAm.yahoo.com> on Wednesday April 23 2003, @01:18PM (#5791860)
    Okay, I read the first few pages of the lawsuit, and then I couldnt stomach the legalese anymore... I'm not a lawyer, after all...

    anyway, the way it sounds is that they are being sued because they sell products/list information that people use to stop the flow of "crap" from these companies. From what I read, they didnt attack these companies, they didnt DoS them, they merely provided tools that people could use to stop spammers from contacting them.

    The people that are using these tools probably never would have purchased anything from them anyway, and if they are like most of us, the emails are blocked/auto deleted/instantly trashed when they do get through, so its a moot point anyway.

    I think these people are just ticked off because their scummy business is being threatened by people who are intelligent enough to "work the internet", not just "use" it.

    thats just my thoughts, I could be wrong...
  • Eddy Marin (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Caveman Og (653107) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @01:19PM (#5791878) Homepage Journal
    Here's the full dope on Eddy Marin, spammer, and why South Florida (especially Boca Raton) is now a haven for spammers.

    Eddy uses a front company, "PG&C Leasing Inc." (aka lauderdale.net) to disguise his activity. This company buys the bandwidth for him to spam through. He then sets up dummy companies to act as "customers" of PG&C. If the heat gets too hot he'll "terminate" a "customer". Of course the spam just continues under another name.

    He's operated like this since 1998. He's had a long time to develope a reputation among his spamming pals, and since he brings money into the local economy, Boca Raton loves him.

    Here's just ONE of his netblocks:

    http://www.senderbase.com/search?searchBy=ipaddr es s&searchString=209.203.192.0%2F19

    The bulk of the spam from that netblock is from "OmniPoint Marketing". If you've been paying good attention. Spam also goes out from "justdous.com, prefersavings.com, dealstwoyou.com, and tlck.net". These are registered to things like "M.M.COMMERCE,INC", and "OptIn LLC" (which is Terry Williams, another Eddy Marin flunkie)

    stealthemail.com ??? Give me a break!

    --Og

  • by rkent (73434) <rkent@@@post...harvard...edu> on Wednesday April 23 2003, @01:53PM (#5792244)
    eMarketersAmerica.org? I have a new domain name to use when filling out online forms that want an email address. Sweet!
  • From the filing:

    "Should the Defendants, be allowed to continue their assault upon the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's industry, the Plaintiff's industry will cease to exist."

    Yay. Now there's an incentive for a judge to issue an injunction if I ever heard one: the preservation of spam.
  • by TekPolitik (147802) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @03:53PM (#5793548) Journal

    Several things point to this being a joke. If it's not a joke, their lawyer is the most incompetent lawyer on the planet.

    1. The "plaintiff" in the suit is not the party alleged to have suffered damage, and cannot sue for the alleged actions.
    2. Several of the defendants described as "entities" are clearly not "entities".
    3. Their claim for "conversion" fails to make out even the vaguest hint of a single element required for an action in conversion.
    4. They claim a "right" to equitable relief. You don't have a right to equitable relief - you have a right to ask for it, and the court can refuse it for any reason the court sees fit.
    5. They're claiming injunctive relief to prevent speech. Even if speech is illegal, injunctive relief is almost never granted to restrain speech.
    6. They describe IP addresses as property. I'm fairly progressive on what can constitute property, but even I have major difficulties with the concept of IP addresses being property.
    7. Paragraph 37 claims that none of the alleged statements of the defendants were regarding matters of legitimate public concern. They're going to have a hard time proving that something currently in consideration in Congress and at a meeting convened by the FTC lacks an element of legitimate public concern.
    8. While some of the other grounds can be argued, they are not plausibly arguable, and the "wrong plaintiff" problem is fatal anyway.

    I have difficulty believing that a lawyer coud really have drafted this crud.

    • You obviously hate spam not quite as much as the next guy.
    • by MillionthMonkey (240664) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:52PM (#5791551)
      He means that in theory, if the Internet traffic resulting directly from the activities of these 180 people were to stop, the number of spam emails arriving in your Inbox would drop almost to zero. Only 419s from Nigeria and occasional sporadic one-time spam would remain.

      This isn't advocating some sort of lynching or suspension of civil rights- it's just a simple statement of fact. The point is that spam isn't something that a large number of people are doing; it's the activities of a very small number of people making us all miserable, and that small number is approximately 180.

    • by Sylver Dragon (445237) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @12:53PM (#5791567) Journal
      It wouldn't really matter anyway, some other people would simply step up to fill in the void.
      As for what, "spirited off internet" means, I think it involves a .45 caliber handgun and about 180 loud bangs. Most of the anti-spam groups seem to view spam as equivilent to rape.
        • by Steve B (42864) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @02:57PM (#5792955) Homepage
          possibly hacking (DOS)

          DOS, schmoss. Why the hell aren't each and every one of the spammers' filter-evasion tricks prosecutable under the computer-cracking laws, as they are clearly deliberate actions aimed at bypassing the access security placed on a computer by its owner?

    • by Steve B (42864) on Wednesday April 23 2003, @02:23PM (#5792572) Homepage
      Spam will not go away until it becomes unprofitable

      When the laws are reformed so that the "cost of spam" includes 2-5 as the Bride of Bubba, then it will become unprofitable -- it doesn't bring in the kind of money that will get people to accept that level of risk (unlike, for example, the illegal drug trade).

    • "Should the Defendants, be allowed to continue their assult upon the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's industry, the plaintiff's industry will cease to exist. This will cause more Americans to become unemployed."

      Wonder if they will be able to file for unemployment? Guess I won't be sending them my resume any time soon...
      Not exactly related to your comment, but the above argument is ridiculous - it is based on the assumption that a business should be guaranteed by its government that if it can make a profit today, it must be able to make a profit tomorrow. If this lawyer's assertion is correct, then the spammers' businesses would cease to exist because their "customers" don't want to receive the product.

      The spam blockers are selling/giving away a tool that lets system administrators and individual users ignore messages that they do not wish to receive. If I started a doorbell-removal business, would certain religious groups sue me for ruining their business?