Spammer Sues SpamCop 466
wolfgang writes "Just wanted to send you word that notorious spammer Scott Richter, President of Email marketing firm OptinRealBig.com, has filed suit against Ironport, which runs anti-spam site Spamcop. According to Richter, Spamcop's initiatives have damaged the reputation of his company. Richter filed for $1 million in damages. A similar suit one year ago, filed by Eddy Marin and his Florida-based Emarketersamerica.org against Spamhaus, was thrown out of court last October." We've mentioned Richter before.
what a suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what a suprise (Score:5, Informative)
Harvesting addresses for spam is a violation of the terms of service for whois.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:what a suprise (Score:5, Informative)
Not to mention a direct violation of CAN-SPAM:
(from http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html [spamlaws.com])
--begin quote--
15 USC 7701
SEC. 5. OTHER PROTECTIONS FOR USERS OF COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL.
.
.
.
(b) Aggravated Violations Relating to Commercial Electronic Mail-
(1) Address harvesting and dictionary attacks-
(A) IN GENERAL- It is unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission, to a protected computer, of a commercial electronic mail message that is unlawful under subsection (a), or to assist in the origination of such message through the provision or selection of addresses to which the message will be transmitted, if such person had actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances, that--
(i) the electronic mail address of the recipient was obtained using an automated means from an Internet website or proprietary online service operated by another person, and such website or online service included, at the time the address was obtained, a notice stating that the operator of such website or online service will not give, sell, or otherwise transfer addresses maintained by such website or online service to any other party for the purposes of initiating, or enabling others to initiate, electronic mail messages; or
(ii) the electronic mail address of the recipient was obtained using an automated means that generates possible electronic mail addresses by combining names, letters, or numbers into numerous permutations.
--end quote--
It's obvious that Scotty doesn't understand the doctrine of clean hands.
Re:what a suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what a suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, the company will win eventually, but that money and time is gone, and what would the company do with his trailer home anyway?
You're missing another converse (Score:5, Insightful)
In a loser-always-pays system, if he sues them and fails, he loses big, so he can't risk suing them even when he's right, because he doesn't have the resources to be 99% sure of beating them, and he knows that they can generate near-infinite legal costs that he'll have to cover. This seriously chills lawsuits by little guys against big companies.
In today's system in the US, he can risk suing them, because if he does at least a halfway-adequate job of making his case, the judge probably won't award legal costs to the winner. On the other hand, if he does try a case that's obviously pretty bogus and frivolous, he'll probably have to pay their legal costs, unless his case is _so_ bogus that it gets thrown out very early in the process, long before getting to trial.
Next up (Score:5, Funny)
Claims they wouldn't have gone bankrupt if not for government interference in their accounting.
Re:what a suprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
/me ponders... (Score:5, Funny)
Scott Richter's 32-employee firm [...]
Just out of curiosity, do Uzis jam or would one be better off reloading a trusty ol' six-shooter 5 times?
lighten up, it's a joke
Re:/me ponders... (Score:4, Funny)
Then maybe shoot Scott 4 times, just to make sure
:-)
Yes, it's a joke too!
Re:/me ponders... (Score:5, Funny)
or maybe so for something "ironic" like death from a million paper cuts where each cut is triggered by a spam detector.
Re:/me ponders... (Score:5, Informative)
"After twelve Karas and five UZIs were placed on rigorous trial in 1951, the UZI emerged as the winner because of its ability to tolerate dust and grit without jamming, as well as its ease and low cost of manufacture."
I hope this answers your question...
Re:/me ponders... (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Mr
During normal inspection of our daily internet packet scanning and logging we came acroos this threat you made on the internet site "Slashdot".
We have reason to believe that you may indeed be a terrorist with plans to shootup any/all companies that deal with the legal practice of email marketing. Although this is a very annoying by-product it is no reason for you wanting to blowup federal buildings.
We have started a full investigation into your planned attacks on American cities and will pursue your capture and secret detention in an un-named facility. If you further threaten to drop a nuclear bomb on the state of Texas your family will also be incarcerated.
Please be aware this is for the protection of the world. We can not stand for your insistence on flooding the world for 40 days and 40 nights, or risk that possibility.
Sincerely,
US Attorney General
John Ashcroft
Re:/me ponders... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:/me ponders... (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently they'd be torturing it before I got home. I watched them torture it for another half an hour before I finally went to bed.
I imagine that after the "fun" was done, they just ate the critter, since there was no sign of the afore mentioned spider, but two very pleased cats asleep on my bed in the morning.
Not wanting to draw any parallels at all, but cats don't piss about with this sort of stuff, someone invaded their space, they tortured it and finally ate it. How is it that spam can invade my home each day and yet they can get away with it ?
Perhaps we need more cats ?
Perhaps I should get my cats email addresses, teach them to use OSX mail and see what they do.
Plan (Score:3, Funny)
Trust me... it wouldn't be a nice way to go, but it would be appropriate for a dirty spammer.
Disclaim
Re:/me ponders... (Score:3, Informative)
BTW, these guys suing SpamCom is like Michael Jackson suing a child he has been molesting (note that this in no way reflects his guilt or innocence in the current trial and is simply included as humorous content).
Re:/me ponders... (Score:3, Insightful)
> lighten up, it's a joke
It may have been a joke, but it's not a bad idea. Suppose they've cost us a billion dollars in wasted bandwidth, and divide that by 32. That's roughly $31 million dollars damage per employee, for a personal income of probably much less than a hundredth of that. To commit such an act requires a person to be incapable of feeling remorse. The only consequences they weigh are their own. They'd kill you for your wallet i
Re:/me ponders... (Score:3, Funny)
He CAN-SPAM... the law says so! (Score:5, Insightful)
Tthe key event is that when every you give your e-mail address to any site on the Internet you usually have the chance to opt in to getting commercial e-mail. Opt in with one of Richter's site, and just like the name of his company implies, you opt in REAL BIG to absolutely anybody who wants to Spam you via him. Oh, the dangers of leaving a pre-checked checkbox still checked when you submit the form.
Once you're caught in Richter's web, the only way out is to send an unsubscribe request email exactly the way that the CAN-SPAM says you should. Sure, responding to the unsubscribe link is a great way to get more spam from unethical spammers... but it's the only way to stop getting spam from a compling-to-the-letter-of-the-law spammer. He's untouchable, he'll plead guilty as charged to being scum... but he's breaking no laws.
SpamCop's free to spread its low opinion about OptInRealBig, but they have to be very careful they keep what they say in opinion territory. If SpamCop's willing to publish nameless acusations that OptInRealBig is sending e-mail to people who didn't really opt in, they'd better be sure those people have their facts straight. Richter's counter is that all these people really did opt in, they just don't remember when they did so. If they'd simply provide their e-mail address, Richter could likely tell them at what site and when they made their mistake of signaling that they were opting in, and if they've just send a proper e-mail to his unsubscribe address, he'll gladly unsubscribe them. But since they won't disclose their address, he can't do much for them.
BULL-FUCKING-SHIT! (Score:5, Informative)
I keep a few email addresses around on various sites. One of them is literally present on only ONE site in the world, and it's in white text on a white background, with a disclaimer "this email address is a spam honeypot, don't send email to it" in text right next to it.
That address STILL gets Richter's spam-crap. Just like every other spammer out there, he's a liar, a thief (ripping off the people paying him to advertise), and deserves to be gotten rid of.
Re:BULL-FUCKING-SHIT! (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you sure it's really Richter's spam-crap you're getting, rather than somebody else's spam-crap? You've got to be sure you're accusing the right people when you go accusing...
Oh, yeah, I'm sure it's him. (Score:4, Informative)
I'm 100% sure it's his spam.
So,... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So,... (Score:3, Interesting)
Be ready to testify. When doing so, be ready to state your name, phyiscal address, and e-mail address for the public record...
So the non-Richter spammers can then pick up your e-mail address off that record... talk about a can't win situation!
Re:So,... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BULL-FUCKING-SHIT! (Score:5, Insightful)
That address STILL gets Richter's spam-crap. Just like every other spammer out there, he's a liar, a thief (ripping off the people paying him to advertise), and deserves to be gotten rid of.
Good. Then write up an affidavit, and send it to the Spamcop folks to help them in their lawsuit. Seriously. Mentioning it on /. won't do anything.
Because unless SpamCop can prove that people who never opted in actually got mail from this guy, he might just win, thanks to the wonderful CAN-SPAM act and the arguments laid out in the parent post. And then we're all screwed. And don't say it can't happen.
Re:BULL-FUCKING-SHIT! (Score:5, Informative)
And don't forget request that the court keep the e-mail address you mention in that affidavit under seal... otherwise it won't just be published on one website anymore.
Getting your honeypot address published is ok (Score:3, Informative)
Re:He CAN-SPAM... the law says so! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:He CAN-SPAM... the law says so! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:He CAN-SPAM... the law says so! (Score:5, Insightful)
A checkbox asking for commercial email that is checked by default is opt out, not opt in. The user still has to take action to not get spam.
Do you want spam from us? [default: yes]
Do you not want spam from us? [default: no]
They both say "we will send you spam unless you tell us otherwise". Both are opt out.
Re:He CAN-SPAM... the law says so! (Score:3, Informative)
If the primary purpose of the form, from the user's point of view, is to get on the spam list, then yes, it's opt in. If getting on the spam list is a side-effect of filling out the form (for example, to get an email confirmation of an order), then it's opt out.
There are three possibities for any yes/no question: question answered "yes"; question answered "no"; and question not answered. It'
Re: I CAN BLOCK ... the law says so! (Score:3, Informative)
A similar principle applies to the users of the Spamcop block list; if they don't want mail from a certain source, there is no obligation for them to accept it. For various technical reasons I prefer some other lists (SBL, CBL, DSBL) over the spamcop list, but the people who do like spamcop should be able to use it.
As for the "
Re:He CAN-SPAM... the law says so! (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, the biggest problem is that the entire spam industry has made next to no good-faith efforts to legitimize itself. OptInRealBig isn't helping.
I have found, based on experiments on my wepbage (explicitly denied *all* spiders by a robots.txt file, unique email address every time it is spidered, etc) that spammers do still spider addresses, opting out does not work, even if the site claims that they comply with YOU-CAN-SPAM. They all claim that I "opted in" by submitting my name to a "FFA" site or crap like that in the bottom of the message.
I did, at one point, get some information about how a spammer got my address. They admitted that they had purchased it from somebody else, who then claimed that I allowed them to because I forgot to click a checkbox on a third company's website several years prior, but wouldn't say who sold it.
Which, if you think about it, is bunk. If permission is that vaccuous, then giving one site permission, you are really giving every single spammer permission, because they can sell said permission freely. And they don't even need to drop you. If company A sells permission to company B and C, if OptInRealBig has purchased permission from company B and you opt out, they can simply obtain permission from company C and continue to spam. So it's pretty clear that YOU-CAN-SPAM isn't going to work, even if they manage to prosecute a few spammers here and there.
See, the big thing here is that SpamCop does not really need to concern itself with YOU-CAN-SPAM in the slightest. YOU-CAN-SPAM uses the term "Spam" but does not create a legal definition of it. Thus, SpamCop can create their own definition of what spam is, and list mailers that violate that. This is similar to how the BBB creates a list of companies who violate their definition of good business. So there's nothing "legally" wrong with creating a list of mailers who buy lists from others and mass-mail them. You can even call it a list of "spammers" and sell it. Which is what this case is really about. As long as SpamCop sticks to their definition of what spam is, there's no real case that can be made.
Scott Richter (Score:5, Informative)
Phone number: (303) 550-9828(Daily Camera) [dailycamera.com]
Email: scottrichter422@yahoo.com [mailto]
Enjoy!
Updated email address (Score:5, Funny)
email: scottrichter423@yahoo.com [mailto]
Oh wait, now it's
email: scottrichter424@yahoo.com [mailto]
Seriously, this email address is a complete waste of time. Do you really think there are 421 other users of Yahoo email that are also named Scott Richter? The second that address gets more than ten spams per day I guarantee he'll abandon it.
Re:Updated email address (Score:5, Funny)
Anyway, I'm sure he no longer uses it.
Re:Scott Richter (Score:5, Informative)
Where's my Opt-Out? (Score:5, Informative)
So if you want to try and "opt-out", you'll have to contact them.
OptInRealBig contact info:
info@optinbig.com
phone: (303) 464-8164
fax: (303) 464-8218
1333 W 120th Ave
Suite 101
Westminster, CO 80234
Any questions regarding their Acceptable Use Policy should be sent to legal@optinbig.com
Re:Where's my Opt-Out? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only place they have to publish their Opt-Out intructions is at the end of every e-mail they send. Can't tell the difference between Richter's e-mails and the other not-law-compliant spamemrs? That's your problem...
Yep, opting in is so easy you can do it without realizing you did. Opting out is so hard you have to strugle to get it done and will often fall into the trap of verifying that you read spam e-mail.
Oh, and you kill your spam before you read it? Oh well, you'll also end up killing the ever elusive opt-out info.
Somehow, this CAN-SPAM law isn't quite what we wanted in an anti-spam law...
Re:Where's my Opt-Out? (Score:5, Interesting)
I read an article somewhere about faxing carbon paper (all black) continuously by taping 2 sheets of it together in a loop so it would go on and on and waste all their ink. hehe perfect time to try it.
Re:Where's my Opt-Out? (Score:3, Funny)
I read an article somewhere about faxing carbon paper (all black) continuously by taping 2 sheets of it together in a loop so it would go on and on and waste all their ink.
I'd recommend against carbon paper, since the carbon dust might get on the lens, in the gears, etc and pretty much waste your fax machine. But other things might work well. For an example, take some of his spam and print it out in white-on-black. Be sure to use a callout box for the bit that says effectively "You asked for this!"
Damaged reputation? (Score:4, Funny)
I would think that he's doing a fine job of that by himself.
How can he hope to win this suit? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that's been tried many times and hasn't worked. Why would this?
Re:How can he hope to win this suit? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that's been tried many times and hasn't worked. Why would this?
Because the credit card company can show up in court with contracts that indicate you really did agree to pay that debt, and then you didn't. They can spread bad facts about you because they can bring supporting documents that stand behind those facts.
Unfortately... you can't exactly prove the negative that says you never did opt in to get Ricter's e-mails. In fact, if you're willing to give him your e-mail address, he'll gladly tell you when and where you agreed that he could send you e-mail about anything he wants to. And if you send him a proper unsubscribe request, he really will unsubscribe you.
One bullet-proof defense to all complaints of slander and libel is "It's true!". However, if you can't prove the truth of that statement, you're not going to get to use that defense.
Re:How can he hope to win this suit? (Score:5, Informative)
Last time, during Felstein's failed eMarketers America suit [google.com], the anti-spammers went for / insisted on a full discovery - unfortunately the Boca Raton spammers bolted when they realised their predicament.
I wonder if IronPort would oblige us by doing the same? Looks like Julian Haight still has a strong presence there.
Getting a good look at the innerworkings of a spammer may just provide a better idea of how to combat them (apart from the sheer entertainment value of watching em squirm).
This one makes me laugh and cry at the same time. (Score:5, Insightful)
The bright spot for me is that SpamCop must be putting some kind of dent in Richter's business if Richter feels like he's got to sue to make SpamCop go away.
Funny how the tricky guys are the ones who talk about using the legal system to "send a message" to anyone who might defy them.
PanIP, the RIAA, and Scott Richter all seem to be cut from the same cloth. Their message seems to be we may not be entitled to a dime but don't you dare defy us, or we'll press this lawsuit until you're bankrupt.
Just lovely having people like this around.
One quote from the article that made me laugh out loud was this one: Oh, yeah, I bet. If Spitzer wanted to settle for $100,000 and Richter turned him down, Spitzer would've dropped it, don't you think?
The other quote that gave me quite a chuckle was, "Messing with us is a big mistake." Oh, yeah, nothing hurts a state attorney general's re-election bid worse than the ill will of a notorious and unrepentant spammer.
Close, but not quite! (Score:2, Interesting)
On the contrary, I think the organizations/companies you mentioned believe they ARE in fact entitled to make a dime!
Re:This one makes me laugh and cry at the same tim (Score:5, Interesting)
When somebody goes walking around spreading FUD against you, saying that you're breaking the law and are going to get sued... you can go to court and effectively file their lawsuit against you for them. You basically sue them seeking either the FUD-spreaders shutting up, or them actually filing the lawsuit and going forward with it.
Richter's claiming SpamCop's spreading FUD against him, the same way SCO is spreading FUD agaisnt Linux users... just because the majority opinion of somebody is low here at Slashdot doesn't take away their rights in court.
Anything we can do to help? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there a legal-defence fund set up for SpamCop? Of do we keep on giving money to the EFF?
Unable to Identify Sender (Score:4, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, the spammer complains about forged headers.
Test of SPAM law (Score:2, Interesting)
Can-Spam [newsfactor.com] Law Meets Its First Test
SO, how long before.... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm certainly not suggesting anyone should initiate such action.... but if you already have, how much longer do we have to wait?
Sincerely,
- The General Public, xoxo
Re:SO, how long before.... (Score:5, Funny)
Ironport (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ironport (Score:3, Interesting)
STELLA!!!!! (Score:2)
Is the glass half empty or half full? (Score:5, Funny)
The Bad: A useful and honorable service is being sued and will have to waste resources defending themselves.
The Good: You can get a clean shot in front of the court house.
Exercise for the Reader (Score:5, Funny)
Final Postgraduate CS Exam, Exercise 11 (Extra Credit): Design a new computer network, or a compatible retrofit for the existing Internet, that continues to express the priciples of transparency, open access, Free Speech, and anonymity-by-default while at the same time being resilient and resistant to intelligent sociopaths (both human and automated).
Schwab
Re:Exercise for the Reader (Score:4, Funny)
Well, I guess that means the stuff really works... (Score:5, Funny)
Scott Richter is a moron and a liar (Score:5, Interesting)
The best quote of the show is this one, though:
Daily Show: "Why do you think the government doesn't want you making $20,000 a day?"
Richter: "Well, that's simple. That's the easiest question there is. Because the US Postal service is saying 'Hey, we need help. We're getting killed here. This guy can send email. He's not wiping out the rain forest. So what are we gonna do with all these little white trucks? We either gotta get this guy to pay 37 cents and buy some stamps... or we're done.'"
Scott's OptInRealBig has spammed almost everyone I know. Noone opted in. Placing an email address on a website does not consitute opting in.
If you're using the Spamhaus SBL to block incoming mail connections, you're already blocking OptInRealBig. If you're not, you can filter on the following domains:
optinrealbig.com
cpaempire.com
optinbig.com
bluerocketonline.com
ss01.net
dfmmb.c
ew01.com
ss01.net
tekmailer.com
moosq.com
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft sues the US DOJ , Nigeria sues the Better Business Bureau, and the US sues the rest of the world, all for defamation of character.
Chutzpah (Score:3, Insightful)
Now this is a little like Kroger suing the Safeway Corporation because Safeway doesn't sell Kroger branded groceries.
Weird comparison, I know, but think of it. If you go into whatever Safeway Corp run supermarket in your area, it is expected that you are going to buy (say) Safeway Select brand root beer, and not Kroger. To do otherwise is a conflict of interest, and besides, the shopper just might like Safeway's brand of root beer over Kroger's.
Likewise, if one (eg, me) is on Spamcop's system, it is generally assumed by their defined purpose in life that the user is, at the bare minimum, passively anti-spam, and therefore does not actually desire spam - so accordingly they will either delete or report it.
Hopefully I made this at least fairly translucent.
Ironic.. What if I want to sue SpamCop? (Score:5, Informative)
Guess someone took 'em up on it...
Come here Scott! (Score:4, Funny)
Scott Richter's company is responsible for millions of dollars of lost productivity. Scott Richter's work is unwanted in 99% of the places that it appears. Scott Richter's company is stealing valuable computer resources and is using them for his own profit.
Not only that, but I heard from a guy at work that Scott has to have a dead dog in his bedroom to get off.
Oh, yeah... And all you Daily Show fans out there know that Scott Richter's e-mail address is: scottrichter422@yahoo.com
~D
Court Transcript (Score:5, Funny)
Richter: Gasp!
Reputation? (Score:4, Funny)
That's like saying a whore's reputation was damaged because someone said she's a whore...
OptInBig and anonymized Spamcop complaints (Score:3, Informative)
I run an Abuse mailbox, and I have to agree with Richter on this point. That is why I created an ISP account at Spamcop.net for my networks and my sending domains, and specified that I do not wish to receive anonymized complaints. Spamcop tells the user submitting an unwanted email from us that we refuse anonymized complaints, and gives the user the chance to send the complaint with their email address in the clear.
Richter could do the same, and comply with the CAN-SPAM act just like me and my company does.
Re:OptInBig and anonymized Spamcop complaints (Score:3, Informative)
What Richter wants to do is called "list-washing" - removal (from one list, anyway) of people who complain. But most spammers will gleefully add that address to all their other lists since it is confirmed "live".
I use Spamcop and choose not to "munge" my e-mail address. But I haven't y
From the suit (Score:5, Interesting)
I love this part:
Yup, you heard the man. Just visiting a website is enough to consent to receive spam. What these "various websites" are, or how a website determines a visitor's email address is left as an exercise for the reader.
By reading this post, you give your implied consent for me to hit you in the face with a cream pie.
Re:From the suit (Score:3, Funny)
Is Ironport a black hat? (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, yeah, there are "legitimate uses" for this thing. Right. Sure.
Even worse, they have a "Bonded Sender program, under which spammers pay a fee to Ironport to bypass spam filters. [bondedsender.com] They charge a fee of $20 for each complaint, but allow one free complaint per million spams. They're vague about what a "complaint" is, and admit they don't use "AOL complaints". They may be counting only complaints that reach abuse@bondedsender.com [mailto]. Since they don't require that mail be marked as "approved by BondedSender", few people know how to complain. And they don't disclose their complaints, or who's in the "Bonded Sender" program.
They're trying hard to insure that all the major anti-spam systems are hardwired to let their spam through. They have patches for all the major spam detection programs. The patches bypass all other spam checking if the source IP address has the DNS record that says it's listed with BondedSender. Now you understand why they bought SpamCop.
A useful check for mail programs is to check the BondedSender whitelist, then run a conservative Bayesian spam filter on the content. If BondedSender says it's not spam, but the spam filter says it is, ship it off to the BondedSender abuse address. Definitely do this for honeypots. Any BondedSender mail that shows up at a honeypot should be reported on NANAE. That will help track how much, or how little, Ironport is really enforcing their rules.
Re:Is Ironport a black hat? MOD up parent please! (Score:4, Interesting)
A very interesting post. I would be interested in reading other slashdotter's information and views on Ironport.
If Ironport is involved in supporting spammers, then other spammers have some reason to sue perhaps. After all, if they are using false pretenses (SpamCop is an anti-spam site) to hurt their competition this might be reason for a legal action. And the case would not necessarily be decided on issues involving spam but rather fraud and illegal competition. (Standard disclaimer: I'm Not A Lawyer and I don't play one on television).
I have to wonder how Ironport can justify "bulk email" support. There was a Wall Street Journal article about a clown who actually opted in for spam. But the number of people who do this is way too small to support any business model that I can think of. So Ironport claiming to support opt-in lists seems like a shallow way to justify supporting spammers.
Nor does it seem reasonable that they would support valid commercial email lists. Groups that someone already have a relationship with (for example, the IEEE) send email from their own addresses. They don't need Ironport. This also allows a group to handle their own email list removal.
Re:Is Ironport a black hat? MOD up parent please! (Score:4, Interesting)
What's scary about Bonded Sender is that IronPort is putting a big hole in the anti-spam infrastructure. They have total control over this hole. They have no contractual relationship or legal obligation to mail recipients that says they can't use it any way they want to. They just say "trust us". They can change the rules and open the spam floodgates once they have enough people relying on Bonded Sender.
We've heard that before.
They have a TrustE logo, but that's meaningless. All that means is that you agree to conform to your own privacy policy. Which you can change at any time.
They might, for example, change the rules to "conform to the four pillars of responsible E-mail" [the-dma.org] promoted by the Direct Marketing Association. Those don't require double opt-in or a previous business relationship, so bulkers can trade mailing lists around. All they have to do is honor narrow opt-outs. (Opt out once for Viagra, once for mortgage refinancing, once for inkjet refills...)
Damaging reputation... (Score:3, Interesting)
- SpamCop says that they are a bad reputation company, then they should be suing themselves as the company that gived them that bad reputation on first place with its actions
- SpamCop says that they are good guys, we should accept mail from them, that they are nice people. That certainly will damage their reputation of the lowest scum on earth, and WE should sue spamcop for saying that
In any of those cases, their lawsuit have no meaning, or they are suing the wrong company or should not be they the ones that do the lawsuit.Last but not least, i must admire their balls on using the legal system that could probably be searching a way to fuck them badly, is a nice thing to cut off and expose in a museum.
how to win a suit against spam filtering companies (Score:3, Insightful)
the adv in the subject line and that meets all requirements by the new can spam law. When your messages get blocked sue every single spam filtering
solution out of existance. Now to tell you the truth I cannot stand spammers but it is a hole in the law that one of them is going to exploit and win.
Re:how to win a suit against spam filtering compan (Score:3, Interesting)
Out of curiousity, exactly what would you be suing them for? The CAN-SPAM Act doesn't have anything to say about filtering systems. The prior arguments in favor of filtering solutions (In short: the filtering solution isn't forcing you to use it) still stand up just fine.
they are going to win (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:they are going to win (Score:3, Interesting)
Wish I had access to Slashdot access logs so I could see if all the "spammers have rights too d00ds!" idiots are coming from the same IP in CO or FL...
Richter's Domains and the Ukranian Connection (Score:5, Interesting)
Blue Rocket Online Media
Rus Penkatar
Alekseeva Str 29
Kharkov, Petra 61009
+3.80577036200
For a "legitimate" outfit, he sure operates some dodgy sounding domains:
-
Allchickswithdicks.com
-
Bumfightsonline.com
-
Cuterteen.com
-
Dailypornbox.com
-
Darknspicy.com
-
Eatmypussyright.com
-
Ebumfights.com
-
Ejackolate.com
-
Funamateur.com
-
Funcheerleaders.com
-
Funwithpee.com
-
Hotterass.com
-
Hugermelons.com
-
Itoonsex.com
-
Lesbianssizzle.com
-
Moreropes.com
-
Oralwonders.com
-
Orgyfilms.com
-
Outsidevoyeur.com
-
Peeperdorm.com
-
Pillsofpleasure.com
-
Realbigerotica.com
-
Realbigfetish.com
-
Realbigsex.com
-
Seducewomennow.com
-
Sexierstories.com
-
Sexyanalteens.com
-
Sexylegssexyfeet.com
-
Sexyyoungstuds.com
-
Smallnsexy.com
-
Youngerasian.com
-
Youngervirgins.com
If you're interested in seeing Richter squirm, check out this thread [infopop.cc] at Abestweb [abestweb.com] where Richter and one of his sidekicks desperately try to convince affiliate marketers that OptInMyArse.com is a legit business operation. An amusing read.Interesting Quote.... (Score:3, Funny)
I'm serious.. He actually said that! hah.
(ok, a little out of context.. but still funny
Tortuous? (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, I think the spammer means "tortious" (involving tort law), not "tortuous" (long and winding, IIRC). Don't lawyers proofread these things anymore? (Of course, without seeing the original filing, I can't tell whether the spammer's lawyer or the reporter is the doofus.)
Merely A Shift in Business Model (Score:3, Interesting)
Losers like Scott and Darl act like it's their "god given" right to profit with as little effort expended as possible. Well you know what? FUCK THEM!
Scott "Bin Laden" Richter (Score:3, Interesting)
Scott Richter and other high profile spammers are conducting a sustained full-scale DDoS attack against the NSA [nsa.gov]'s ability to monitor E-Mail traffic.
One of NSA's main sources of informations in the war against terror is traffic analysis. Terrorists are using strong cryptography nowadays, so it is difficult (even for the NSA) to decrypt. However, traffic analysis exposes pattern of communications that can be extremely useful in tracking down terrorist networks. If A sends a message to B, it would normally mean, that both parties have a common relationship which should be investigated.
With the constant flow of spam, traffic analysis is effectively thwarted. One can hide in the unending stream of spams, simulating an infected Windows PC drone. It is always possible to deny having sent a message: "Hey, how could I know that my PC was infected by that damn worm again?"
Spam is an excellent vehicle for steganography too. With all this random nonsense designed to circumvent spam filters, hiding an encrypted message there is a piece of cake.
Lobbying Ashcroft or Congress to outlaw spam is difficult. The DMA proved to be much stronger this time.
Write to your representative, and point out that CAN SPAM provides terrorists with an effective method to escape detection and surveilliance. Point out that CAN SPAM, as it is written today, harms the National Security in unintended ways.
With all this terror hysteria in Washington DC, you could even make an impression!
Re:Damaged reputation??? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Damaged reputation??? (Score:4, Funny)
By saying you need a prescription for those pills???
Re:Subject of legality. (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom of speech always has restrictions.
Commercial speech is even more regulated.
Outright fraud and violation of other laws makes some spam illegal.
Selling drugs (ie viagra), porn (obscenity laws) is illegal in some places.
Some spammers hijack computers or use them without the owners consent. This is also illegal.
Most spamming is against the service contract that of the spammers ISP. Contract violation.
Many people do not want spam, and do not want to pay for it, this is why junk faxes are ille
Re:Subject of legality. (Score:3, Insightful)
Blocking unsolicited e-mail is also still totally legal.
Re:Subject of legality. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, not quite ...
People - the constitution regulates what government can do -- not what private individuals (or /. editors) can do.
Re:Subject of legality. (Score:5, Interesting)
Boiler-plate response: (Score:4, Insightful)
Email is closer to a fax than postal mail. Spam is no different from faxing unsolicited advertisement flyers. It can incur significant costs on the recipient. Thus, it should not be protected.
Next?
Re:Subject of legality. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, that, and commercial speach isn't free speech. Really, people misinterpreting the whole freedom-of-speech issue is one of those things that makes me want to cause bodily harm.
Really, this case has nothing to do with the legality of SPAM. SpamCop is listing OptInRealBig because it falls within their definition of Spam, not because it is illegal. This is no different than somebody suing the BBB because they have a bad record with them.
Caselaw (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if we interpret free speech to mean "say whatever you want", that doesn't mean I have to let you come into my house to say it.
Re:I hope (Score:3, Funny)
What would really funny is if during the trial the judge was to get spam flooded from the Mr. Richter's company.
Re:Spamhaus sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
Then economics and common sense indicate that your provider should get a new provider.
Or you should get a new provider if that option is available.
Isn't that how this whole thing is SUPPOSED to work? You are getting annoyed at the wrong people.
Sadly not an answer (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't sarcasm, there are lawyers in my family.