Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Spam The Internet United States Your Rights Online

Alan Ralsky Gripes About Can Spam Act 706

fdiskne1 writes "The New York Times has an interview with Alan Ralsky, commonly known as the world's worst spammer. CNet is running the same interview. Ralsky admits using open relays and virus-infected PCs and not honoring unsubscribe lists. He complains about having to comply with the new CAN-SPAM law will cost him an additional $3000 in costs to set up a genuine opt-out list. Anyone here feel sorry for him? Okay, I'm biased, but I can't wait until we see him in prison."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Alan Ralsky Gripes About Can Spam Act

Comments Filter:
  • Well duh.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <> on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @08:49PM (#7841108) Homepage Journal

    "The law was not written for a commercial e-mailer," he said. "I don't think what they are doing is fair."

    I think that's the point, Mr. Ralsky..
    • Who gives a shit what he thinks? Fuck'em

    • Re:Well duh.. (Score:3, Informative)

      by johnnyb ( 4816 )
      Actually, as a _legitimate_ commercial mailer, the company I work for is pretty excited about the new act. Mostly, it gets us away from the stupidly crazy California law (which claims authority over email which merely passes through California, even if it is neither the origin or the destination - just if the packets go through there).

      For those of us who already have rigorously-adhered to unsubscribe lists and rigorous rules about what email addresses you can legitimately send to, the CAN-SPAM act helps u
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @08:50PM (#7841114)

    Well, ok maybe he doesn't deserve death. But he definitely deserves a very hefty fine and prison cell with Bubba.

    • Well color me radical, but im leaning toward death for him
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Where is the Unibomber now that we need him? :)
    • by Silicon_Knight ( 66140 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @09:44PM (#7841565)

      The geek way to stop spam:

      Step 1: Create a mod for a popular first person shooter game involving a list of prolific spammer and relistic weapons.

      Step 2: Distribute said game to those "evil teenagers that plays too much video games and get influenced and shoot up their classmates".

      Step 3: Wait for problem to take care of itself.

      That way loosers who shoot their classmates and random people are *educated* to shoot the actual varmints of this society instead of random innocent people. And for the rest of us who can learn to differentiate a game from real life, it does sound like a fun game... :-)

    • Prison Rape (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Loundry ( 4143 )
      But he definitely deserves a very hefty fine and prison cell with Bubba.

      This is one aspect of American culture that really disgusts me (and I'm American). So many of us believe that if you go to jail, then you deserve to be raped. It's such a common belief now that it's as if the punishment for crime were rape instead of prison, and prison is just the place where the punishment (rape) is carried out.
    • Unfortunately, it seems like it's the spam fighters [] who are doing the dying.
    • by FyRE666 ( 263011 )
      Well maybe not a prison cell, I'd rather see him locked into a set of stocks, with a nice big pile of cans of spam nearby his victims could fling at him for a few weeks ;-) It'd be worth the plane ticket for me!
    • by Chatmag ( 646500 ) <> on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @10:33PM (#7841935) Homepage Journal
      Death to spammers has been the prevalent sentiment on the anti-spam message boards, including the Usenet group NANAE for some time.

      The entire system of crime and punishment, at least in the USA, has been the notion of "let the punishment fit the crime". In it's purest form, the concept of modern law is to "set right that which was wronged", in other words, allow the law to compensate a person or other entity to the point before the offense. That is the concept of compensatory damages; punitive damages awarded the wronged serve to further punish the offender.

      How a rational person can equate being wronged by receiving unsolicited emails calling for the death penalty for the sender, and say, the punishment that will befall the killer of Laci Peterson is beyond me.

      There will come a time when some overzealous anti-spammer will decide to take the law into their own hands, and physically attack a spammer. A taste of that was seen last spring at the Federal Trade Commission summit on spam in DC. Others have made thinly veiled threats to destroy computer server centers, and it is only a matter of time before someone decides to act on their impulses.

      If nothing else, any lawyer would counsel against making statements on public Internet sites that may come back to haunt a person later. The First Amendment is fine, it's up to the individual to decide when their statements are free speech, or incriminating evidence.

      What punishment (provided Ralsky would be convicted on an offense) do I believe he should get? Compensatory damages equal to the total cost of bandwidth, server space, etc. that he has used sending out emails over the years, and punitive damages ten times the compensatory amount. In the end, instead of living in Bloomfield Hills, he'll be on the corner of Second and Forest, bumming for spare change.
      • by TedCheshireAcad ( 311748 ) <ted&fc,rit,edu> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @12:20AM (#7842552) Homepage
        Make an example out of them. Nothing says obey me like a bloody head on a stick.
      • by davburns ( 49244 ) <davburns+slashdo ... .edu minus berry> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @03:11AM (#7843370) Homepage Journal
        First, I think everyone knows that the "death penalty" is entirely hyperbole.

        That said, there are about 2.5Gs in an 80-year human lifetime. Ralsky boasts of something like 70 million spams per day. If it takes a human being 1 second to delete a spam, that's one human lifetime wasted per 36 days of spamming. Okay, filters help a lot -- but those filters also cost people-time to create. Aside from that, even if only 5% gets through to a human, he's wasted 1 whole human lifetime in 2 years.

        So, what would be a compensory penalty? The 80 years (more than the rest of his life) at community service would be a start. But that doesn't account for all the cleanup of the zombies he relayed through, nor the ISP resources (mailbox space and bandwidth). It also doesn't compensate the public for the loss in usefulness of email.

        In Ralsky's case, he cannot possibly afford to compensate for what he's done. But there is more to justice than compensation and punishment. Justice also requires Mercy.

        He's 57 years old now. He can collect social security in five years. Let him. (In the mean time, he can sell his big house and move into a small appartment thats easier to afford. Maybe Sanford Wallace is looking for a roomie?) But after he has to start tagging his spam, it'll be so easy to filter that nobody will pay him to send it. I cannot imagine anyone hiring him to work. So, he'll fade into obscurity, and justice will be served by his repentance and remorse.

        Except, he's a spammer, so he'll more likely break the can-spam law, and do those next five years in prison (I assume, based on his open admission to news reporters that he uses zombies, that there will be some wiretaps in place by Jan 2 at the latest.) When he gets out, he has the same choice to make all over again.

  • Hmm, looks like we need to set up a open hunting season on spammers. Too bad they don't taste too good, never was fond of SPAM myself.
  • What an ass (Score:5, Insightful)

    by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) * on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @08:51PM (#7841123) Journal
    "I personally hate mailing with proxies," he said. "It's rough. But you do what you got to do."
    "I have changed the way we mail totally," he said. The spam fighters, he added, "have no idea what I'm mailing. They could never pinpoint it and say this is from Al Ralsky."

    Ralsky said that he was uncomfortable about this deception, but that he had no choice. "Is putting bogus information in your registrations the right way to do business?" he asked. "No. But the Internet world has forced me to do that."
    He doesn't seem to realize or care that what he's doing is wrong. It's like a mugger complaining, "Is putting on a ski mask the right way for me to make a living? No, but the world of people who don't wish to be robbed at gunpoint in a dark alley has forced me to do this."


    "I personally hate clubbing old ladies over the head so I can snatch their purses. It's rough. But you do what you got to do."

    I hope somebody clubs Al Ralsky over the head in a dark alley... Jerk.
    • Re:What an ass (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dus ( 139697 )
      He doesn't seem to realize or care that what he's doing is wrong.

      No, of course not. Someone like Ralsky is most likely a sociopath (Antisocial Personality Disorder []). He can't grasp the concept of responsibility for his actions.

      Best to throw him in a dungeon and never let him out again, IMNSHO...
      • I guess so. I think a good general rule for moral behavior (note, GENERAL RULE. That is, there are many, many exceptions...) is this: Would I like everybody else in the world to know I did this? If the answer is "no," then it's probably an immoral action. If he's having to deliberately hide his identity, that should be a good tip-off that what he's doing is a bad idea.
  • by Nonillion ( 266505 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @08:51PM (#7841130)
    Call some one who gives a shit Alan Ralsky.
  • In Prison? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @08:52PM (#7841136) Homepage Journal
    I can't wait to see him wresting bread crusts from sea gulls in a K Mart parking lot. He's an excellent example of a selfish individual and capitalism at its worst.
  • "He calls the law unfair, but adds, "You would have to be stupid" to try to violate it." You would have to be stupid to call the law unfair. What you are doing is unfair to the millions of people you send SPAM to.
  • >> "I create jobs. But the media has made e-mail out to be some sort of terrorist plot."

    Goes back the argument (and please don't get on my case for quoting this) that guns dont kill people. People kill people.

    I run a few niche sites in Hong Kong and have found that people are more than willing to open newsletters if they're filled with content (we fill ours with events calendars, reviews of restaurants etc) AND targetted special offers. Emails are working and they're working very well.

    I wish I had
    • >> "I create jobs.

      Well, that much at least is true. I kinda figure this guy is directly responsible for the employment of many, many mail admins the world over.

      Then, as that spam that gets through filters consumes the time of many millions of people, then he's also responsible for the employment of the extra people needed to cover the non-productivity of those who are reading his spam.

      Finally, he's also responsible for employing those people who create filters for individual email clients. If Al
  • by DynaSoar ( 714234 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @08:56PM (#7841170) Journal
    Spammers are stupid
    Ralsky is a pammer
    Ralsky is stupid

    Ralsky is stupid
    Ralsky says "it would be stupid to violate" [the law]
    Ralsky will violate the law

    But I'll bet you'd figured that out anyway.
    • "Ralsky is a pammer"

      does this mean Ralsky uses Pam on his pans to prevent sticking?
    • Nope. He'll violate the spirit of the law without violating the letter of the law. CAN-SPAM has so many holes in it, it doesn't completely ban spam, just bans sending spam in certain ways.

      As long as there's a way for Ralsky to send e-mail that isn't traceable back to him, there's no way to convict and punish him. Sounds like that's better fixed with tech instead of a law...
  • Not that I think for one second that Ralsky will actually abide by the law, but at least assuming that he does, it certainly warms my heart to know that finally, finally, a spammer is actually having to pay some out-of-pocket expenses for the privilege of making Mozilla Thunderbird do some work for me.

  • by cgranade ( 702534 ) <cgranade@g[ ] ['mai' in gap]> on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @08:57PM (#7841179) Homepage Journal
    Wasn't CAN-SPAM meant to help spammers? I mean, it had loopholes large enough to fly a 747 through, for Christ's sakes.... so why is he complaining?
    • It is.

      Just not Alan Ralsky. It's there to help folks like the DMA do *their* kinder, gentler spam. That it gets rid of the current competition is merely a side benefit that I'm sure they made some sizable campaign contributions to ensure.
    • No, you've got it subtly wrong. It was meant to help mainsleeze, which are large companies that spam but under the auspices[1] of "email marketing" or "permission based marketing" or whatever they want to call it. These companies don't mind providing unsubscribe links, and they don't use proxies. The more they can clamp down on the "porn 'n' pills" group of lowlifes, the more it makes their flavor of spam seem legitimate. "See look, you're no longer getting all of those pornographic emails, we cleaned i
    • If Rawlsky follows the rules, not only will he be paying more to send spam but filters will be infinitly more effective.

      The rules force spammers to reveal themselves. While spammers could avoid the rules without legal reprocusions they could circumvent filters that depended on those rules for effectiveness. Now that they have to follow the rules, filters will do their job much better.

      For example, I've never gotten a spam that followed the rule of putting ADV: in the subject.

      Yes spam is legal so more sp
  • by grahamsz ( 150076 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @08:57PM (#7841187) Homepage Journal
    There's a perfectly reasonable convention of prefixing adverts with [ADV] in the subject line so people who dont want to read them dont have to.

    If they aren't going to play fair then i dont see why we should. We need to make sure that the financial penalties outweigh the potential profits to be made. If it's a small penalty per email sent, then it'd take a while to whittle away ralskys fortunes.

    We need to make an example of people breaking these laws to act as a deterrent. Perhaps a 3 emails and your up for life in prison....
  • by kfg ( 145172 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @08:58PM (#7841192)
    allowing people to opt-out of burglery, robbery, extortion and murder are killing me. I'm just trying to make a living. Do the law makers even realize that I have to let people go when they pass laws like this? It's costing jobs during an economic downturn. It doesn't make any sense.

    On the other hand, the price controls on recreational drugs and prostitution are a partial compensation, but the state monopoly on gambling really put a crimp in my style.

    What's the world coming to.

    Well, at least I'm not a scum sucking spammer.

  • personally (Score:5, Insightful)

    by segment ( 695309 ) <> on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @08:58PM (#7841194) Homepage Journal
    I wouldn't give this prick a moment of time bothering to read what bs he has to say. I would like to say though, what makes anyone truly believe any law passed will stop spammers? It's different if you were sending fines to those who's products are being sold, but spammers are doing the same thing telemarketers, and flyer distributors do. Only more annoying.

    What the hell does anyone think some low life e-tard in Nigeria or South America care about American laws and spam, nada. Zilch zip nada. The law is a farce and being that its coming close to election, I'm wondering if it was solely sent through for whoring purposes...

  • "He has done business in two dozen countries, and has never visited any of them. He buys mailing lists from people in Sweden and India. And these days, he says, he sends his mail from computers in China and three other countries."

    Won't all spammers who don't already email from other countries do so to get around the law? What can legally be done to stop or punish the spammers from doing this?

    He says he's worried but I don't think he is at all. I think he's just playing to the press.

    - tokengeekgrrl
  • So what kinda opt-out list is being used now? The one that basically just ads your email back into the spam pile, i guess... that's really lame. Of COURSE you should have to use REAL opt-out! That's like car makers complaining that they should have to use "REAL" brakes, or that cigarette makers should have to use "REAL" package labeling.
  • Why isn't this guy in jail? There's tons of evidence of him violating all sorts of laws. The FBI should pick him up now. It's a stain on the face of law enforcement that losers like this can go around bragging about committing crimes.
  • Contact your AGs NOW (Score:3, Informative)

    by mabu ( 178417 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @09:09PM (#7841303)
    Here is a list of the Attorney Generals [] around the country and the world. Everyone should contact their AG and demand that they prosecute these crimes. Until the public puts pressure on the authorities to enforce the crimes these spammers commit, nothing is going to change.
  • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @09:11PM (#7841316)
    Security by law sits right next to security by obscurity on the list of things that help a bit, but by no means make a complete solution. Making spamming illegal isn't going to stop spammers, because sending spam by a virus-infected computer is already illegal since virus writing is illegal too... those laws haven't allowed us to stop running anti-virus programs, have they?

    The bottom line is that SMTP has got to go. We need to get wide adoption of an e-mail protocol with authentication that the "from" address being claimed belongs to the sender of the message. That's the only way to make sure that spammers lose their ability to send e-mail without reprocussions. The face-value "from" address has to be much more relaiable than the current system lets it be.
  • The NY Times article said spammers had to identify themselves. How does a spam message have to identify itself? Can't we simply hit them with Bayesian filters more accurately?

  • by Call Me Black Cloud ( 616282 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @09:14PM (#7841331)
    The New York Times has an interview with Alan Ralsky, commonly known as the world's worst spammer...Ralsky admits using open relays and virus-infected PCs and not honoring unsubscribe lists.

    From that description it sounds like he's a pretty damn good spammer. The world's worst spammer is probably some guy trying to send spam through his AOL account.
    1. New e-mail
    2. Paste address
    3. Paste body
    4. Send e-mail
    5. Dismiss popup ad
    6. New e-mail
    7. etc etc
    8. Profit!
    No, I think ol' Alan is good at what he does. Of course that's like arguing who was the best serial killer...
  • Seems to me, all he needs to do is run for office, and he is safe from CAN SPAM.

    I can see it now:

    V.ote for me.... your V ia gra can.didate ___________________________________ xzpoasd

    click here [] to unsubscribe. (fake link on purpose)

  • Is how this guy is making money out of this at all. Who reads this stuff? No-one! The amount of emails sent that actually arrive, are read and then acted on has to be approaching zero. Or is he just charging advertisers $500 per million for email that no-one reads? $500 that the brain-dead advertisers keep blithely paying simply because he sends them an invoice every month?
  • by KC7GR ( 473279 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @09:19PM (#7841371) Homepage Journal
    Good Lord above... What about the millions of private E-mail boxes, privately-owned servers, and God only knows how many other computing resources, belonging to other people, that Ralsky and his spamming butt-buddies have already abused, and CONTINUE to abuse in some cases?

    I would be very interested in hearing how "fair" the owners of all those resources think the new law is. Oh, granted, said law is far from perfect. However, if it helps to force criminals like Ralsky out of business for good, I will be the first to give it a round of applause.

    Ralsky's misguided belief that he has any right at all to abuse property that does not belong to him is typical of the spammer mindset. The sooner he, Scotty 'Snotty' Richter, Eddy Marin, and all their spamming ilk get shut down permanently, the better off the Internet will be.

  • by Cranx ( 456394 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @09:25PM (#7841417)
    ...he's just a symptom. Imprison him and someone else will pick up his lost business contacts and opportunities. U.S. laws will simply mean his revenue taxes will go to some other country.

    What we need is to get rid of the "demand" end of this issue. Tighten up email so it requires at least some level of authorization to send to someone else, even if it's just by having a certificate of trust or something.
    • ...he's just a symptom. Imprison him and someone else will pick up his lost business contacts and opportunities. U.S. laws will simply mean his revenue taxes will go to some other country.

      Wrong. Imprison these people and this will deter others - we're not talking about crack addicts. These guys break into computer networks and steal resources and they go on television and in the media because the authorities don't enforce the laws. There will always be spammers but there won't be as much spam and big o
  • by fermion ( 181285 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @09:25PM (#7841421) Homepage Journal
    The saddest thing is he uses the same excuse as the spouse batterer, the child molester, and the fascist ruler:
    Mr. Ralsky said that he was uncomfortable about this deception, but that he had no choice. "Is putting bogus information in your registrations the right way to do business?" he asked. "No. But the Internet world has forced me to do that."

    Why do people still think this is a valid excuse. I am sorry I killed my husband but he didn't use a coaster. I am sorry i killed my child but she kept crying. I am sorry I killed one million people, but they were in the way.

    No one makes you do something. You make a choice. You make a choice to go to school or not. You make a choice to go to work or not. You make a choice to live an honest life or not. You make the choice, and you should be man or woman enough to stand by them and take responsibility. Not be yet another sorry excuse for a human and say "I don't recall" or "I didn't know" or "I was ordered to".

  • by claar ( 126368 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @09:35PM (#7841492)
    What else would Ralsky say about this new "tough" spam law? Did anyone else ever tell their parents after a spanking, "Didn't hurt, didn't hurt!"? What was the result? After getting a harder spanking that did indeed hurt, children quickly learn to pretend to feel pain to avoid a worse punishment.

    I think Ralsky is openly complaining about the slight inconveniences this law has caused in order to affirm this law as effective, hoping to avoid tougher legislation that would actually hinder his "business" practices.
  • by grahamsz ( 150076 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @09:39PM (#7841519) Homepage Journal
    In general i'm not too bother about regular dead tree advertising. In general it's *fairly* well targetted and a good enough source of things like pizza coupons.

    If spam was targetted to me and *clearly* marked so it didn't interfere with my regular emailling, and allowed me to easily unsubscribe - i dont think i'd mind too much.

    I have no need for penis enlargement pills, but don't objected to what are technically unsolicited adverts from my local computer store. Even if I wanted to take advantage of 90% of spam I couldn't because i dont live in the US.... that's just wasteful.
  • by gottafixthat ( 603767 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @09:43PM (#7841560)
    Okay, this may be a silly question, and one that has been asked many times before, but I haven't seen it here.

    In every interview with Ralsky that I've read, I've seen him mention that he had to use open proxies, open relays, etc, etc. He doesn't seem to ever admit to having any systems that do the actual mail sending, instead he has always stated that he hijacks other systems to send out his garbage. There are many computer tresspass laws on the books here in the US already, and Ralsky is in the US. With his public statements, why hasn't the FBI picked him up for computer tresspassing charges?

    With all he has done, it would not surprise me in the least if the examination of his computer network revealed the source for at least a few of the worms/viruses used to turn an Outlook Express user's computer into a spam sending drone. Again, there are laws on the books already that cover these sorts of illegal activities in the US.

    Another thought that popped into my head, is why the IRS hasn't come after him for tax evasion? With all of his wealth, and his admitted morals, you know he hasn't claimed all of his income on his 1040's. A nice tax audit in the face of an FBI investigation would likely reveal all of those companies that are paying him to break the law and send their garbage out through these (essentially) hacked systems. They could also be brought up on charges as accomplices in any computer tresspass actions.

    I guess the biggest problem is that there would need to be damages shown. Well, having run a regional ISP's mail servers for the last 10 years I can tell you, there are a lot of damages to be accounted for that are the direct cause of spam. The countless hours writing and implementing anti-spam filters, the angry customer phone calls, and all of the emails we get accusing us of selling our customer lists to spammers, etc. Not to mention the lost revenue from people switching providers because they were getting too much spam. The damages to our company over the last few years alone amounts to tens of thousands of dollars if not more. The AOL's, Verizon Online's, etc. have lost a lot more.

    Its next to impossible to quantify in exact dollar amounts though. The process goes like this, "our mail servers need to be upgraded because the volume of mail is higher". Can it be attributed directly to spam, or to a growing customer base? Things may get easier after January 1st for us, but I'm certainly not holding my breath.

    So if anyone out there sees this, and has a cousin or friend that works for the FBI or the IRS, you may want to turn them on to Ralsky and crew. Make him an example and others may (but probably won't) be deterred from entering the same line of (ahem) "work".

  • Victim? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) < minus poet> on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @09:46PM (#7841580) Homepage
    He makes it sound like he's the victim because people block his emails.

    Maybe he should figure out that those are not his networks he is sending the emails over.

    And the "if you don't like it unsubscribe..." bit is funny. How about, if I want it I'll subscribe?

  • by MrByte420 ( 554317 ) * on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @10:03PM (#7841718) Journal
    I do not have a spam problem.

    1. Buy yourself a domain and setup a default alias that you check...
    2. For each website you goto that needs an email, give them their own. gets gets gets

    and so on. If one happens to sell/use your address, big deal, /dev/null that sucker. Keep one address just for friends and compadres and you'll never have a spam problem..You'll also know who you can't trust cause it shows up right in the To: line....Sure, one or two might show up once in a while because they guessed it but I have had the same address for almost a year now and I get 0 in my inbox while my Spam box gets /dev/nulled with the full confidence of nothing getting lost.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @11:16PM (#7842199)
    This is an accurate address. After several phone calls to some friends at some utilities/services/creditors, I have confirmed it. :P When your a debt collector, you make enough contacts with other companies that all it takes is a few calls/e-mails and you can own someone. I have enough information on this upstanding citizen to BE him (don't ask for it, i'm not that stupid..i'm already walking a fine line). lol. I'm so paranoid about putting this on here, I used a friends ID to go into his credit card account where I work. But perhaps tomorrow I'll call Verizon and cancel his internet account...awww! :]

    Looks like meat's back on them menu boys!!! (that is for the /.'er who referenced eating his flesh)

    6747 Minnow Pond Rd
    West Bloomfield, MI

    His home phone# is 248-926-0057
    His work phone# is 248-926-0668

    He also has two celluar phones which I traced back as AT&T Wireless numbers. Not sure if both still in service - give a call, don't forget to block your numbers!!!

    Send SMS Here []

    I suggest we all gather our junk mail/coupons/fliers and start mailing it to his house, and all start making collect calls to his house/work and cell's. We pay for OUR internet access - and he uses our time/money/bandwidth without consent, its only fair that we return the favor.

    If anyone has any viagra (I'm sure someone does) - pleaes mail him some - with a lovely note attached on how to enlarge his penis. Maybe his boyfriend will thank you...


  • Who to blame? (Score:3, Informative)

    by DrugCheese ( 266151 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @11:37PM (#7842312)
    He wouldn't have a job if companies wouldn't pay him for his services. I wouldn't download 300+ spam messages a day unless someone out there was clicking on them. All falls back on the un-educated computer user. I would imagine they would also have bad credit, problems keeping it up, and an overwhelming curiosity to see a naked Paris Hilton.
  • by tkrotchko ( 124118 ) * on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @11:48PM (#7842378) Homepage
    I think he's doing a PR spin. This law is actually good news for spammers.
  • by Quirk ( 36086 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @11:52PM (#7842402) Homepage Journal
    Mr. Ralsky is Ferengi and spam is dealt with under the Rules of Acquisition. When Ralsky receives the death penalty his remains will be sold...wait for cans of spam
  • Misplaced admiration (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zerofoo ( 262795 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @11:54PM (#7842411)
    During the past few weeks i've seen a reduction in the amount of garbage in my hotmail inbox, I thought Microsoft implemented a new spam filter - maybe not.

    From the article:
    But he has not sent a single message over the Internet in the last few weeks.

    Maybe the reduction in spam was due to this guy taking a break.

  • by Camel Pilot ( 78781 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @12:07AM (#7842480) Homepage Journal
    I will never Opt-out a list because these scum^h^h^h businessmen will take you off their list and sell or trade your e-mail to other spammer. An e-mail of someone who opt-out's is valuable because it says

    The e-mail adddress is valid

    The message slipped thru the filters

    And the e-mail owner reads their e-mail

  • him (Score:5, Funny)

    by chunkwhite86 ( 593696 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @12:30AM (#7842596)
    Okay, I'm biased, but I can't wait until we see him in prison.

    I'm also biased. I'd like to see him strung up by the balls and used as a pinata.

    I guess that's why I'm not a Judge in a criminal court. Oh well. Might be fun though...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @12:47AM (#7842717)
    >>Alan Ralsky, commonly known as the world's worst spammer.

    Ralsky's not the world's worst. That dubious honor goes to Eddy Marin of Boca Raton FL, convicted coke dealer, and generally believed to be the main impetus behind the SLAPP suit against the "nanae nine." Google around for 'rokso marin'.

    The reason for Ralsky's supposed contriteness in the NYT interview is not any sense of having seen the error of his ways; the reason he's running scared is the recent lawsuit against fellow spambag Scott Richter of Denver CO.

    All three of them need to be dressed up in frilly lingerie and dropped into Bubba's cell along with a bucket of chilled champagne.

  • Criminal Charges? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by zangdesign ( 462534 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @01:08AM (#7842848) Journal
    By his own admission, he once produced more than 70 million messages a day from domains registered with fake names, largely by way of foreign countries--or sometimes even by way of hijacked computers ...

    Does this make him liable for criminal charges if anyone can find one of those hijacked computers? IANAL, but even admitting to a crime without any evidence should still have a prosecutor sniffing around, shouldn't it?
  • by dmaxwell ( 43234 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @01:37AM (#7843009)
    Alan Ralsky dies and re-incorporates in Hell. Startled, Ralsky asks "What am I doing here? I never killed or raped anybody." A bureaucratic looking demon in wireframe glasses sat him down at at a battered desk overflowing with paper and said "Look you're not here permanently. You just have to atone for your sins and you can the other place."

    "Oh! But what did I do?" asked Ralsky.

    "You've sent a multitude of unwanted emails. You couldn't take no for an answer several billion times over. Look at this desk. Do you think that is all paperwork?" Ralsky pulled nervously at his collar as he noticed that some of the papers did indeed promise the demon a larger penis or fantastic real estate deals. "So what do I have to do?"

    "Well", said the demon getting up from his chair and leading Ralsky out of the room. "You have clean up the spam." He led Ralsky to a vast warehouse stacked floor to ceiling with herbal viagra ads and other such 'valuable' offers. "How am I supposed to clean this up?!?!" fretted Ralsky.

    The demon grinned maliciously as he wadded up a breast enlargement ad and said "Turn around and drop your pants."

"The way of the world is to praise dead saints and prosecute live ones." -- Nathaniel Howe