Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Spam Government The Courts The Internet Your Rights Online News

OptInRealBig Wins Restraining Order On SpamCop 519

arikb writes "Some online newspapers are reporting that the infamous Scott Richter and his company OptInRealBig won a temporary restraining order against SpamCop. The TRO prevents SpamCop from sending complaints about OIRB to their provider or removing email addresses from the complaints it receives which regard OIRB. I think we will rue this day for years to come." Update: 05/12 16:43 GMT by T : The Ultimate Fartkno writes "HillsCap, a fed-up SpamCop user, is now organizing a class-action lawsuit to be brought against Richter and Opt-In. At least 1,000 signatures are needed, so tell your friends!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OptInRealBig Wins Restraining Order On SpamCop

Comments Filter:
  • Chicken Little (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @07:41AM (#9125519)
    I think we will rue this day for years to come.
    Spare us the drama. No, we won't rue this day for years to come. It's a temporary restraining order that expires on May 20th. That's next week. If you blink, you'll miss it. Also, note this from TFA:
    IronPort did not file an opposition to OptIn's motion for a TRO, which OptIn filed May 4. The court reviewed the papers and issued its ruling on OptIn's motion May 10 without a hearing. IronPort has not yet filed an answer to OptIn's original complaint.
    Ironport owns Spamcop, for those who don't know. So where's the problem? The sky is not falling. Someone show the judge the Daily Show clip of Richter, his "high volume email deployment", and how he was made a fool. I'll reply if I find the link.
    • Follow-up (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @07:44AM (#9125537)
      Video [taint.org]. Wonder how long that poor schmuck's server will last, but it's not on the Comedy Central page for the Daily Show that I can see.
    • Re:Chicken Little (Score:5, Insightful)

      by merlin_jim ( 302773 ) <James.McCracken@nospaM.stratapult.com> on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @07:56AM (#9125611)
      Just a thought; would this then require OIRB to positively identify which mass e-mail campaigns are theirs, so that SpamCop can comply with the injunction?

      I mean in order to comply, OIRB would have to provide identifying characteristics of their e-mails, right? Isn't that just what all the spam filter guys have been looking for? Identifying characteristics... yeah I know, easy to change next week, but in the meantime they'll have a definitive list, giving them a clue into this week's state of the art in spam obfuscation...
      • Great point. And if they put a "signifying" characteristic in their messages, many other spammers will want to duplicate it so they fall under the same protection. That is, they'll claim to be OIRB.

        But OIRB would get pissed, and might sue. Both companies will go down in a boiling lake of legal bills.

        Or maybe that's just my optimism kicking in.
      • Re:Chicken Little (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Liselle ( 684663 ) * <slashdot@@@liselle...net> on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @08:09AM (#9125692) Journal
        I mean in order to comply, OIRB would have to provide identifying characteristics of their e-mails, right? Isn't that just what all the spam filter guys have been looking for?
        You only have to look as far as your inbox. True to its name, if you sign up (heh) for OptInRealBig spam, you can be assured you'll get lots more spam from OIRB's "partners".

        I think you answered yourself. Sure, it would help for a week, but then the method would become ineffective, and we'd be stuck with it. Useless, and with more overhead to boot. No, Scott Richter just needs to be shut down, period. You can't kill all of the cockroaches, but you can kill the big ones that can't run fast, and like to give TV interviews.
      • Re:Chicken Little (Score:5, Insightful)

        by johnnyb ( 4816 ) <jonathan@bartlettpublishing.com> on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @09:22AM (#9126295) Homepage
        First, I know nothing of OIRB specifically. However, please don't assume that all email marketing companies are spammers. It just isn't true. I work for a company that does email marketing, and our server has had the same IP address for over a year, and all of our emails come from the same domain, with clear opt-out instructions (in addition, you had to have opted in directly to have received it to begin with).

        There are some of us companies who actually do send legitimate email where the recipients are trying _to_ receive the message rather than trying to block us. I have personally walked many people through turning down their anti-spam software to make sure our messages get through to their system.

        Anyway, I think it would be wise to be sure that we remember that not all commercial marketing email is bad, or else I'll wake up one day and half.com will no longer be sending me email updates about which books I want have come in at the price I specified (which is in fact the most effective form of email marketing).
        • Re:Chicken Little (Score:4, Informative)

          by merlin_jim ( 302773 ) <James.McCracken@nospaM.stratapult.com> on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @09:35AM (#9126418)
          The problem is that OIRB is in fact junk mail; basically it's an association of a lot of different mass email marketers, and when you opt in for one, the fine print is that you opt in for all of them.

          This is not effective email marketing nor is it ethical, IMHO...

          I also do email marketing campaigns. Any campaign I design complies with the following criteria:

          • Users explicitly permit email to be sent to them
          • Users have the option to not receive email marketing items
          • User email addresses will never be sold or shared with other organizations
          • The email is sent from a non obfuscated mail server owned by the company sending the email (or their ASP), and the mail header information is valid
          • The email is a tasteful, well-formed message using no obfuscation techniques
          • The email is sent from a valid email address to a single recipient


          As long as you follow these criteria there's no reason any spam filtering software should filter you out...
        • There are some of us companies who actually do send legitimate email where the recipients are trying _to_ receive the message rather than trying to block us.

          If I had a nickel for every spammer who claimed to be a legit marketer, I could retire to a place that didn't have email.
          My ideal world is one where, in order to receive marketing fluff, one had to walk into the corporate offices, find the director of marketing and slap them in the face. Twice.

    • Re:Chicken Little (Score:5, Informative)

      by thewldisntenuff ( 778302 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @08:00AM (#9125637) Homepage
      http://dnsbl.net.au/files/show.wmv
      http://www.ian ai.net/jokes/DailyShow.ScottRichter. wmv
      http://www.badmonkey.ca/files/show.wmv

      Links to the Scott Richter clip!

      Maybe this will fix my crappy karma....May the Slashdot Effect Begin!!!!

      -thewldisntenuff
    • Re:Chicken Little (Score:3, Informative)

      by JuggleGeek ( 665620 )
      The TRO has been dissolved and an expedited hearing has been scheduled.

      http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3352951

      In the order dissolving the TRO, Judge Armstrong said, "The legal issues are more complicated than they originally appeared and the Court has a number of questions regarding the facts." For this reason, the TRO was dissolved and an expedited hearing set for May 18 in which both parties can set forth their arguments regarding the restraint.
  • So? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Black_Logic ( 79637 ) <wintermute AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @07:45AM (#9125541) Homepage Journal
    SpamCop can't make the complainers' information anonymous.

    Why would that matter? Who could the complainer recieve backlash from that would matter? Could they maybe get a frivilous lawsuit from that slime Scott Richter?
    • Re:So? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Zocalo ( 252965 )
      Because clueless ISPs, or those working hand-in-hand with spammers, will simply forward the report to the spammer verbatim. As a result the spammer gets a known active email address to charge extra dollars for in any potential meta spamming activities. The fact that the email address *might* generate a spam report, that *might* get the service revoked is a lesser worry.
    • Why would that matter? Who could the complainer recieve backlash from that would matter?

      I'm sure that they wouldn't end up on 10x the number of spam lists than they are already on now. After all, spammers are so honorable.</sarcasm>

    • Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AndroidCat ( 229562 )
      Listwashing. Each single complaint represents thousands(?) of people that Just Hit Delete or filtered it to /dev/null. After a while, Snotty's mailing list has a lot of the people who will complain about spam tagged as "do not send" as well as "confirmed good email". Then he'll sell his lists to other spammers with the first tag stripped off...
  • by matth ( 22742 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @07:46AM (#9125545) Homepage
    Let me make sure I have this straight... who's got a gun to the mailserver administrator's head saying "You must use spamcop to filter your mail"? No one.. ok that's what I thought. So how exactly does OIRB even have a case here? Spamcop is running a service, which somtimes blocks OIRB, they are forcing everyone and their mother who runs a mail server to use them (spamcop)... so why did this even go through? It's not spamcop's fault.. it's the mailserver admin's fault the mail is being blocked. And, unless I'm wrong, mailservers are privately owned pieces of machinery and I have every right to say "Sorry, you can't come trampling on my equipment right now", to someone. So while OIRB might not like it, my mail server is private property.

    Isn't this like hireing Diebold to secure your house, and then having someone (say Jehovah's Witnesses) complain and file a suit against Diebold because they can no longer come up to your house and just enter?

    I know I know.. I'm stretching the example a bit... but JW can 'technically' come up to my house knock and I can talk to them if I wish. I can also turn them away.. it's MY house.. MY property. I install a third party system which does something or other to keep them away... how's this diebold's problem? or mine for that matter?
    • by Liselle ( 684663 ) * <slashdot@@@liselle...net> on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @07:58AM (#9125627) Journal
      Weird, I don't usually see analogies on Slashdot that make sense. /applause

      But anyway, that's only one aspect of it. Richter is also going after them for forwarding complaints to OIRB's ISP instead of the company directly. It's not that people use their blacklists (although that's part of it), it's that SpamCop is actively trying to get ISPs to shut him down. Presumably for a violation of TOS or whatnot. Richter claims that it's unlawfully costing him business. I know, I know, he's full of #$@$, I am just stating the facts. :P
      • But anyway, that's only one aspect of it. Richter is also going after them for forwarding complaints to OIRB's ISP instead of the company directly.

        SpamCop does not choose who to forward complaints to. It does provide automated header analysis to determine reasonable spam complaint addresses associated with the origin of the spam. The SpamCop user then chooses where to direct his complaint. SpamCop merely provides a temporary address for that purpose. This prevents spammers from (a) learning that the user
    • who's got a gun to the mailserver administrator's head saying....

      This logic has always bugged me. Spamcop runs a blacklist. Many people make a choice to use their blacklist, this is true. But just because no one is pointing a gun at your head doesn't make the owners of the blacklist any less accountable for collateral damage that is a direct result of their actions. While you make a choice to use their blacklist, you don't nessicarly have any form or control over the blacklist.

      Don't get me wrong. I
      • by ScouseMouse ( 690083 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @08:29AM (#9125824) Homepage
        Whether or not Spamming is legal is not actually the point. Any private individual has the right to hold opinions on the activities of another person or company.

        The scummers, erm, spammers, are using the argument that blocking these emails is costing them business.

        I would use the counter argument, that people (And this includes ISP's) choose *not* to recieve these emails because they are costing them time and money, and the spammers are not recompensing them.

        You may have the right to show me advertising, but you dont have the right to make me pay for you to do it. One of the reasons i dumped my old Dial up account is the minute or so wait while i downloaded scum.. erm.. spam... erm... marketing emails during which time the clock was ticking, but i coudnt use my internet connection.

        There are still quite a number of places in the world where people still pay for internet by the minute. (Not me any more fortunately)

        So, if any of your spammers are out there reading this message, Feel free to try to sue me for accusing you of the following: you are BOTTOM SUCKING LEECHES who survive by MAKING EVERYONES INTERNET CONNECTIONS THAT MORE UNPLEASANT TO USE. I not only hoping you loose the case against SPAMCOP, AOS, MICROSOFT et al, i hope they NAIL YOUR SCUMMY LITTLE COMPANIES TO THE WALL, and prove to everyone just what MORONIC IDIOTS you are in practicing this BARELY LEGAL "marketing" activity that would be BANNED IN VIRTUALLY ANY OTHER MEDIA.

        Hmm, theraputic, must do that more often :-)
    • Read the Article (Score:5, Informative)

      by hburch ( 98908 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @08:11AM (#9125709)
      Heck, read the summary. The injuction and the suit involves sending e-mail to ISPs (presumably, OIRB's) and deleting e-mail addresses from complaints. This suit does not deal with listing OIRB as a domain that you may want to block.

      "We're not going after IronPort because of their blocking. We're going after IronPort for the harassment," [OIRB's Scott Richter] said. "We're going to go after many antispam groups."

      I think they are going after because of their blocking, but their suit does not complain about the blocking. They are going after anonymous e-mail complaints and sending e-mail to the ISP. Your argument does not address the issue at hand.

    • "Isn't this like hireing Diebold to secure your house, and then having someone (say Jehovah's Witnesses) complain and file a suit against Diebold because they can no longer come up to your house and just enter?

      I know I know.. I'm stretching the example a bit... but JW can 'technically' come up to my house knock and I can talk to them if I wish. I can also turn them away.. it's MY house.. MY property. I install a third party system which does something or other to keep them away... how's this diebold's prob
  • The Root of Spam (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ca23e ( 720130 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @07:47AM (#9125548) Homepage

    These companies will continue to use whatever legal tactics they can so long as the response rate to their spam makes it profitable to run their business.

    While I'm all for the further development of spam filters and blocking spammers, our inboxes will not be free of it till people stop BUYING from their advertisements.

    • by smartin ( 942 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @08:33AM (#9125859)
      While I'm all for the further development of spam filters and blocking spammers, our inboxes will not be free of it till people stop BUYING from their advertisements.

      People say this all the time, but obviously it is an unworkable solution. What really needs to be done is to penalize companies that use the services of spammers. Clearly in order for spam to be effective the company selling the product must be accessible. The law, (and/or those practicing vigilante justice) need to insure that those trying to use spam pay more than they make from it. Once it becomes impractical to use spammers, the spammers will go out of business, fall into deal depression and hopefully take their own lives.
    • by FFFish ( 7567 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @11:30AM (#9127973) Homepage
      And therein lies the problem: evolution simply isn't working on the dolts who purchase from spam advertisers.

      We need to up the ante.
  • by codepunk ( 167897 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @07:48AM (#9125556)
    Eveyone can thank the can spam act for this but he is still going to win his suits. As long as he is fully following the federal can spam act rules he is on strong legal grounds. Yes it may suck but according to the law he may be doing absolutely nothing wrong.
    • by That's Unpossible! ( 722232 ) * on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @07:59AM (#9125631)
      As long as he is fully following the federal can spam act rules he is on strong legal grounds.

      To continue spamming, maybe. But how is he on strong legal grounds to force a company to stop classifying his email as "unwanted," when that is exactly what spamcop does. They take complaints, record them, munge them, and pass them on to service providers.

      CAN-SPAM says "you can spam, if you do it this way, and you won't be sued or thrown in jail." But it doesn't say other people can't filter you, file complaints against you to your ISP, etc.

      This is retarded.
    • No, not necessarily (Score:5, Informative)

      by Croaker ( 10633 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @08:26AM (#9125794)
      according to the law he may be doing absolutely nothing wrong.

      Right, but that does not automatically mean that SpamCop is doing anything wrong. The Can Spam act is essentially irrelevant here, because the issue isn't whether spamming is legal, but whether spamming was in breach of the contract with the spammer's ISP. The issue is that SpamCop is ratting out the spammer to his ISP for spamming, and that ISP pulls the spammer's plug. If the ISP has written into its contract with the spammer "no spamming" and he/she/it spams, then that is totally legal. The argument here that SpamCop is interfering with the spammer's business unjustly (which most of us think it isn't). The little razzle-dazzle about "we're complying with the can spam act!" whine by the spammer is irrelevant.

      As an analogy: If we're neighbors in an apartment building that forbids pets, and I ratted you out to the landlord because you had a few cats, you won't be getting into trouble with thelandlord because owning cats is illegal... you'll be getting into trouble with the landlord because you've violated your lease.

      What the spammer is trying to say here is that under the Can Spam Act, you cannot go directly to the ISP with complaints. You must complain to him first. IANAL, but that sounds like bullshit. If SpamCop was out of the picture and I complained to the ISP directly myself, would I get sued? I don't believe there's any way you could restrain my right of free speech to inform the ISP that his client is in breach of his contract. I also don;t think the ISP would be required to give up my identity to the spammer. As the article said, there isn't a legal requirement to be faced with your accusers in cases such as this.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @07:49AM (#9125566)
    I couldn't help by mention this part about Scott, after he complete defends himself from being considered a 'spammer', yet the people who go against him are.....

    Scott: "Well, these anti-spammers-"

    DailyShow: "Don't you mean anti-high-volume-email-deployment?"

    Scott: "What?!??....that just sounds stupid, they're anti-spammers"
  • Wrong Approaches (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jenohn ( 758625 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @07:49AM (#9125567)
    We are approaching this wrongly in so many ways.

    There are legal methods which will fail because there is already precedence with SPAM grocery mailers, etc. There are also smart lawyers working (for high dollars) for the spammers who can get cluelesss judges to support the SPAM purveyors.

    There are firewall/spam blocker methods that will continue to fail as spammers learn the tricks to route around them. This is the old hacker/security expert game. Build a better lock/block and it will soon be cracked/by-passed. The cycle is repeated ad nauseum.

    The only real method of fixing this is to charge for e-mail. Once the spammers have to pay then their rate of return (ROI) will decrease so that it is no longer a viable business model.

    Yes, this means we will pay for e-mail. I hate the idea as much as you, but I cannot see a working solution in any other method.
    • I agree with an exception:

      I believe we SHOULD have to pay for email and even for content...

      BUT if we participate or respond we are "rebated" - if we respond to the email or click on a link - we are rebated or given another penny.

      On a site like this, if we receive high moderation we are given credit towards a subscription.

      This would encourage quality interaction on websites such as this.

      It would cost spammers with illegit offers/phishing scams lots of $$ and there discourage (but not stop all of) them
    • by Anonymous Coward
      >There are firewall/spam blocker methods that will continue to fail as spammers learn the tricks to route around them

      You don't know what you're talking about. Firewalls have nothing to do with spam, and as far as spam filters go I find that a well trained Bayesian filter is good at blocking 99.8% of all the spam I receive.

      I use PopFile at home, which is traight-forward Bayesian filtering but we use SpamAssassin at work, and that uses other methods to identify spam, such as IP blacklists and some of th
    • by Albanach ( 527650 )
      Of course. Lets stop the international flow of email. Or are you suggesting governments should run the internet?

      Charging for email is impossible and unnecessary. The big problem with spam is the inherent problems with SMTP - in other words people can make up an email addrss and send mail from it. Lots of people are already working to tackle that problem. As spam becomes more of a problem we can hope more sites will publish SPF records and start using them. Once they become the norm rather than the excepti

    • Re:Wrong Approaches (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Paying for e-mail to stop spam? Nah. Check out the link below for a neat solution against spam.

      http://www.paganini.net/ask/
    • by kunudo ( 773239 )
      Well, currently I'm able to set up my own mail relays/servers etc, just like hotmail does. So if the big guys (hotmail, yahoo etc) decide to charge for mail, even charge for mail going into their servers, they will see a decline in people who use their servers. I would guess that >90% of all the accounts at the providers that would consider charging for mail services are personal accounts. Not business accounts. Most businesses have their own mail servers (well, maybe not the plumber down the street, but
    • Paid Email (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mfh ( 56 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @08:12AM (#9125715) Homepage Journal
      > The only real method of fixing this is to charge for e-mail.

      I disagree. Spammers will simply screw customers *harder* to get more money to cover the operating costs. They won't care if email costs money, but it will make them much more vicious. They will likely have to do massive targeting research to ensure they get the maximum effect from each little email. New email addys would likely receive less spam in a paid system.

      There has existed a business model very similar to the spammers' model, for quite some time; junk snail mail. The costs of sending junk snail has no effect to the countless bouts of the crap clogging up mailboxes everywhere. The only difference is that when it costs money to send, you would likely root out all the lame idiots who spam for dollars, but have no infrastructure for doing so... they would disappear, or become soaked up by corporations bent on spamming. My point is, the paid email model will result in tighter groups of spammers earning money together in an organized way.
    • Re:Wrong Approaches (Score:5, Informative)

      by Liselle ( 684663 ) * <slashdot@@@liselle...net> on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @08:19AM (#9125757) Journal
      This is the greatest checklist ever made. I owe the creator a donut and a big cup of coffee.
      --

      The parent post advocates a

      ( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante

      approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.
      (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may
      have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal
      law was passed.)

      ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
      ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
      (X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
      ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
      (X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
      (X) Users of email will not put up with it
      ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
      ( ) The police will not put up with it
      (X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
      (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
      ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential
      employers
      ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
      ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

      Specifically, your plan fails to account for

      ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
      (x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
      (X) Open relays in foreign countries
      ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
      ( ) Asshats
      ( ) Jurisdictional problems
      (X) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
      (X) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
      ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
      ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
      ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
      (X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
      (X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
      ( ) Extreme profitability of spam
      ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
      ( ) Technically illiterate politicians
      ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
      (x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
      ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
      ( ) Outlook

      and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

      ( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been
      shown practical
      ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
      ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
      ( ) Blacklists suck
      ( ) Whitelists suck
      ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
      ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
      ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
      ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
      (X) Sending email should be free
      ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
      ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
      ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
      ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
      ( ) I don't want the government reading my email
      ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

      Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

      (x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
      ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.

    • "The only real method of fixing this is to charge for e-mail"

      Charging for e-mail won't work. First thing that would happen would be that most everyone (spammer and non-spammer) would stop using e-mail. I know I would. Charging for e-mail is nothing more than an incentive to stop using e-mail.

      The users would migrate to other internet alternatives that would replace e-mail such as nstant messaging systems altered to do what e-mail does, or other Internet techniques to allow the exchange of messages.

      Then

    • What are you indeed proposing?

      A tarrif on raw data sent over the internet?

      You can't possibly distinguish data sent over the internet in the form of an e-mail as opposed to some multi-player RPG or HTML. On the level that it passes from router to router from the original computer to its destination that is how it is treated (and should be too!) Indeed, firewalls and other cute things of that nature really end up perverting the internet by assuming (incorrectly) that only port 80 (typical HTTP port) is ne
    • by Steve B ( 42864 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @09:09AM (#9126174)
      How does nonsense like this get modded up as "Insightful"?

      There are two possible rules: "You must pay to send e-mail" or "You may not spam". If you can enforce the former, you can enforce the latter. If you cannot enforce the latter, you also cannot enforce the former. Thus, if you're going to make a rule, it ought to be the latter (which impacts only abusers) rather than the former (which impacts everybody).

  • by MrByte420 ( 554317 ) * on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @07:55AM (#9125602) Journal
    These arguments Richter is bringing up have had their showing in courts before. Richter complains that spam cop is interferring with his business. Spam Cop is doing no such thing. Spam Cop is not forced upon anyone. Spam Cop has given out their negative opinion about something and the target is just trying to shut them up.

    Suppose I create a website which rates hardware for PCs and I decide that such in such Video Card really fucking blows big chunks. This is akin to the manufacter trying to argue that I am interfering with his business because I'm telling everyone his product sucks - as long as I'm not being intentionaly libelous, I would think I'd be 1st amendment protected.

    Remeber that lawsuit last year from that copany that magiccaly sprung in Flordia just to flie a suit and disappear? That blew over - Spamhaus is still around and this will too.

  • by OhHellWithIt ( 756826 ) * on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @07:57AM (#9125615) Journal

    I hate to say it, but I actually feel some sympathy for the spammer. I understand the Can Spam Act requires spammers to stop sending if recipients tell them to stop, but how am I to know that a given spammer is under U.S. jurisdiction; therefore, I will not tell the spammer to stop, lest I confirm that my email address is valid.

    The problem is that any law that allows people to send spam legitimizes the activity.

    • Now even though I don't sympathize with any spammer, here's the deal. We need to stop those stupid idiots that buy the things from spam. If they didn't waste their money on overinflated products and things that don't actually work, then we wouldn't have a problem. As far as the Can Spam Act goes, the U.S. has been trying to control the Internet for years. There's been plenty of bills that have been passed for control. How much do you want to bet that this has something to do with Big Brother watching
  • by Mr. Darl McBride ( 704524 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @08:02AM (#9125648)
    If you have any unwanted offers from "Opt In Real Big" (the most recent major campaign was the "Tail Wagging Offers" thing), save those and get ready to offer them up to Ironport as evidence.

    Opt In Real Big claims to be an opt-in only company. However, they operate through third parties with no checks in place to ensure the third parties are using opt-in lists, paying those parties based on how many people click their links. Making it a <fingerquote> policy </fingerquote> gives them plausible deniability up until people start laying down evidence that they're full of shit.

  • Rue? RUE? (Score:2, Funny)

    by da3dAlus ( 20553 )
    Inspector: "He vill rue zey day he vas born a Fraankenshtien!"
    Townfolk: "What?"
    Inspector: "I said 'he will rue the day he was born a Frankenstein!'"
    Townfolk: "Ohhhh"
  • Rue! [m-w.com]
  • by Woogiemonger ( 628172 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @08:09AM (#9125695)
    I bet they bribed the judge with a penis enlargement pill.
  • Throttling (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sly Mongoose ( 15286 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @08:10AM (#9125702) Homepage
    The only way to eliminate SPAM is to make it unprofitable. Since the world is full of fools, we can't count on them to just not respond to SPAM so we need to reduce the numbers of SPAM messages sent by the spammers.

    We need some sort of real-time, content-driven connection throttling on the mail servers of the world, so as to reduce the number of SPAM that can be sent in any given time. The inbound mail can be analysed on-the-fly and if the word pen1s or vi@gara is detected, throttle the connection so that mail takes 60 seconds to send.

    Throttling will only affect mass mailings. Who cares if their legitimate mail about V.I.C.O.D.I.N is delayed by 60 seconds? And there will be no false-positive difficulties because all mail will eventually get delivered. But bulk-mailers will discover that they can send far fewer SPAM in a day, which drops their response rate and their profitability. Hopefully to the point where they can't sustain their business any more.
    • by Alranor ( 472986 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @08:29AM (#9125825)
      Hmm.

      You might be onto something here, although, where you advocate real time throttling of spam, i'd change that to real time throttling of spammers

      There, that'd solve the problem ;)
    • Re:Throttling (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jdreed1024 ( 443938 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @09:17AM (#9126239)
      The only way to eliminate SPAM is to make it unprofitable. Since the world is full of fools, we can't count on them to just not respond to SPAM so we need to reduce the numbers of SPAM messages sent by the spammers.

      While I agree that spam must be made unprofitable, I think some public awareness can happen. Personally, I'd like to see something like what the government (FTC?) did a while back - set up false pyramid scheme sites, and when people sign up, send them an e-mail explaining that they could have lost millions. Of course, that was a "pull" method. Doing that with spam would require sending out millions of spam mails to lure the idiots to get your message, and I'm not interested in discussing whether or not the ends justify the means.

      I suppose they could do it through traditional mail. Or take out ads in newspapers. It's all about public awareness. And don't say the majority of people who buy this can't read. Remember, they have to have computers. Several articles showed that it was mostly white-collar workers getting suckered in by penis pills.

      Regardless, people need to be informed that most offers are illegal and they'll end up being screwed. People need to undersand that chances are big software companies such as Micosoft and Network Associates have not endorsed resellers with the e-mail address "muffins@happyhangover.com" (I got that one yesterday, seriously)

      Another solution I guess would be to make Viagra free and remove demand, but I bet that's a bad idea...

      We need some sort of real-time, content-driven connection throttling on the mail servers of the world, so as to reduce the number of SPAM that can be sent in any given time. The inbound mail can be analysed on-the-fly and if the word pen1s or vi@gara is detected, throttle the connection so that mail takes 60 seconds to send.

      Throttling is great, but basing it on words is a bad idea. It won't work. Spammers will keep finding ways around it. That article a while back that showed how people recognize shapes of words proves that there are near limitless ways to "spell" a given word. You can't check for every possibility without putting undue load on a mail server. (This isn't your personal mail server we're talking about - some mail servers get literally thousands of pieces a mail per minute, often more).

      Throttling, however, is great. I can't think of a legitimate reason to send more than, say, one or two mails per minute. (All these numbers are guidelines, obviously we'd have to figure out someting that works for most people, but still annoys spammers - don't waste your time flaming me saying you send 3.5 mails per minute). If you violate that, you don't get to talk to the mail server for 5 minutes. Violate it again within 30 minutes, and you don't get to talk to the mail server for an hour. Violate it more than, say, N times per day, and you don't get to talk to the mail server for 24 hours. This would put a huge damper on spamming runs. And if something really needs to get through but you're banned from the mail server, you can use your ISP's webmail service (most offer one), or go get a yahoo account temporarily or something), or maybe you can call your ISP and explain what happened (assuming there was a legitimate reason) and get yourself re-activated.

      That's how most colleges deal with bandwidth hogs. (It's a shared resource, not a right, deal with it.) If you go over the bandwidth cap (which is publicized, unlike Comcast, and is quite generous (on the order of several GB/week) once, you get a warning. The next time, once you use up your bandwidth for the week, it's gone. You're SOL until Sunday. Some colleges provide a "reserve", which you can activate to get your work done, but if you go over that, too bad. You get to go to the library and do your research the old-fashioned way, or you get to go to a public cluster. Does this inconvenience students? Not really. The primary use of most college networks is for academics (check the AUP you

  • So? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Eviscero ( 675126 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @08:10AM (#9125706) Journal
    As many of you have said, it expires on May 20th. That's just a week away. If it gets extended then we may have a problem.

    According to www.spamfilterreview.com;

    12.4 BILLION...not million...BILLION emails per day in spam crosses wires. Thats 40% of total email sent over the entire internet. That is completely insaine.

    I say let's legalize spam, this way the spammers dont have to hide their addresses. Then, when we find out who they are; we'll duct tape them to chairs and make them watch teletubbies for months on end with no sleep and no food.
  • Messing with my mail (Score:3, Interesting)

    by carvalhao ( 774969 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @08:11AM (#9125710) Journal

    IANAL, but why the hell does anyone have the right to mess with qhat I choose to do with the email I get? If I put a filter that automatically filters all messages from Microsoft.com, can they sue me for not allowing them to carry on with their business? And that said, if instead of putting that filter myself, if I choose an ISP that uses such a filter, why should they be charged with anything? It was my choice, as a consumer, in the first place...

    I wonder if everyone in /. started sending random trash by email to Opt In employees, using up their bandwith and rendering their business mail useless, if they would be so tolerant... Anyone's got a list of those addresses, by the qay? ;)

  • by Kris_J ( 10111 ) * on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @08:18AM (#9125748) Homepage Journal
    Now that Iron-(plays boths sides of the fence)-Port owns Spamcop, I don't care what happens to them. It's just a shame I renewed my account there only a couple of months before they were bought.
  • by user no. 590291 ( 590291 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @08:21AM (#9125771)
    Spamcop puts a list of IP ranges and abuse addresses on their front page, along with an annoncement that they are not allowed by court order to send complaints to these addresses about these ranges. They can also provide a cut and paste ability for people to send reports outside of SpamCop for these providers.
  • by The Ultimate Fartkno ( 756456 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @08:25AM (#9125791)


    FYI-

    HillsCap (who I think is an admin at an ISP) has gone on the warpath against Scott Richter. See this thread in SpamCop's forums...

    http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showto pi c=1456

    He's saved up a few *million* emails from Scotty and he has contacts with some interestingly acronymed agencies, if you get my drift. If the right people get on board with this, we just might be able to raze Opt-In and sow the ground with salt after it's gone.


    • An update...

      StopSnottyScotty@yahoo.com has now been created as a contact address, and a website will hopefully be along soon. HillsCap is hoping to get at least 1,000 people to sign on to the lawsuit since that's about the number of complaints it takes to get the FTC's attention.

      Tell your friends, tell your neighbors! It's barbecued spammer for dinner tonight!

  • SpamCop.*net* (Score:5, Informative)

    by mcbridematt ( 544099 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @08:45AM (#9125960) Homepage Journal
    The SpamCop we are talking about here is not spamcop.com (which this /. article links to), it is spamcop.net [spamcop.net].

    Hmm, what idiot provides this guys bandwidth?
  • OptIn's contact info (Score:5, Informative)

    by raider_red ( 156642 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @08:47AM (#9125979) Journal
    From the optinrealbig.com web site:

    Contact us via e-mail: info@optinbig.com
    or phone: (303) 464-8164

    OptInRealBig.com, LLC
    1333 W 120th Ave Suite 101
    Westminster, CO 80234

    I think we should all give them a call or send them a friendly letter letting them know what we think of their "service".
  • This is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Paulrothrock ( 685079 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @08:59AM (#9126076) Homepage Journal
    How is this different from OIRB suing me when I delete one of their spams? SpamCop is selling a service that deletes it for me so I don't have to deal with it.
  • by Doesn't_Comment_Code ( 692510 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @09:25AM (#9126329)
    I'm no spam fan, but some of the spam blocking services out there are becoming overzealous. Ever heard the saying "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water"? It is better to get a few spam emails than to have an important email blocked.

    Through a series of events that were no fault of my own, I was black listed in one of the spammer databases! I'm speaking specifically of SPEWS here, which in my opinion is the most reckless, least responsible one out there.

    I went to their website to get my address cleared, and the faq basically says, "So sorry you're in our database. You're screwed, we'll never take you out."

    I have countless emails returned to me every day from people who's email service checks SPEWS. I have to call each IT department to get whitelisted, which is a huge waste of my time.

    My point here is that even though in this particular case the guy actually IS a spammer, there has to be some level of accountability for spam blocking services. If they go telling everyone you are a spammer and that no one should listen to you, they'd better be right, or they are committing a form of libel.
    • My point here is that even though in this particular case the guy actually IS a spammer, there has to be some level of accountability for spam blocking services.

      No, your point is that you were inconvienced by SPEWS, and you want somebody to squash them for you...

      Sorry, no. SPEWS maintains a list within the terms that they set. They aren't explicitly claiming that "the guy at this IP is a spammer", just that an IP is blacklisted for one of various reasons.

      You could just as well say that a store's securi

  • I reiterate (Score:5, Funny)

    by FU_Fish ( 140910 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @10:05AM (#9126684) Homepage
    I reiterate from the previous story. If OptInRealBig is a legitimate opt-in e-mail marketing service, then why don't they have a place anywhere on their website to opt-in?
  • by sabri ( 584428 ) * on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @10:18AM (#9126838)
    We, as a community, should put more efforts in the education of our politicians. They are the only people who can create and accept legislation which in the end will force judges to stop listening to a spammers whining.

    Until we succeed in that, our technical battle is quite hopeless. That hurts yes, but I'm sure most people will agree with me. A few years ago, a blacklist was very useful. Today you end up being sued by the same people who force you to buy bigger mailservers. Sad.
  • by Ra5pu7in ( 603513 ) <<ra5pu7in> <at> <gmail.com>> on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @11:55AM (#9128404) Journal
    The big argument that OptIn is using (and apparently with success) is that they are never being given the email addresses of those people who wish to opt out. SpamCop has existed since long before laws like CAN-SPAM, and its methods were those needed at the time. Now we need to make sure the laws that are being put in place have enough teeth to make a difference.

    SpamCop has the data on the largest and worst of the spammers. It has data on the thousands of email addresses that have reported these spammers. Voluntarily sharing this with federal investigators would be a great beginning. Based on CAN-SPAM, there will need to be evidence that spammers are not removing email addresses. SpamCop can be the intermediary who stores a copy of every request to be removed and ever subsequent email with tracking back to the originator. By working with the feds, SpamCop could wipe out several of the hard-core spammers.
    • The big argument that OptIn is using (and apparently with success) is that they are never being given the email addresses of those people who wish to opt out.

      It's not SpamCop's responsibility to facilitate opt-out services, the vast majority of which are irrelevant in the first place. As a SpamCop member, the last thing I want are these people getting my e-mail address. It's much more likely they'll use it to harass those who report them, than remove them from their lists.

      As for SpamCop working with ag
  • by DaveJay ( 133437 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @12:32PM (#9129005)
    Once upon a time, my wife and I started a bulletin board for people with a specific problem. Lots of people had been discussing this problem on another board, but huge TOS limitations and draconian, inconsistent enforcement of same made it an undesirable place to talk.

    Within a few days of our board going online, the other board's "administrators" contacted us. It seems that OTHER people were telling each other on THEIR board about OUR board, and they wanted it to stop. They told us to shut our board down or they'd report us to our ISP as spammers. Extortion, essentially.*

    Now here's the thing: when the other board contacted us (via the yahoo address my wife had used when setting up an account on the old board) I replied with a newly created email account on my domain. The only email I ever sent from that address, in fact the only time I ever used that address EVER, was during the email exchange between myself and the other board's folks.

    The end result? Well, we didn't give in, so they complained to our ISP. As "proof" of our spamming, they submitted a huge pile of URLs linked to forums (most old and no longer actively administrated) filled with recent posts containing ONLY the email address I used with them, and links to other identical forum posts. You guessed it -- they took my email address and posted all of these forum links THEMSELVES to make it look like we did it. Even now, I can find tons of these posts on google -- they never seem to go away.

    Oh, and my mail server gets hundreds of emails A DAY to that address, all of which is spam (I finally set the server to /dev/null 'em.) Thanks, fellas.

    So yeah, I could see why the SpamCop folks hide the address, and even though I don't use their service, I think they're terrific for taking that approach.

    *Note: we basically called our ISP, sent them the extortion letters, and were told "we'll look into it and let you know." They were supportive and professional, and did in fact investigate it just in case we WERE spamming -- which was the right thing to do -- eventually returning a verdict of "you did nothing wrong, their complain is not legitimate, and you did not violate our TOS". Best. ISP. Ever.
  • blink... missed it. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Cavelier ( 95132 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @01:10PM (#9129601) Homepage
    The TRO has already been dissolved.

    From dissolution of ex parte TRO:

    On May 10, 2004 the Court issued a temporary restraining order (the "TRO") against defendant
    Ironport Systems, Inc. dba SPAMCOP.NET, Inc. ("Defendant") on behalf of OPTINREALBIG.COM,
    LLC ("Plaintiff"). Defendant has objected to the TRO and sufficiently explained why its objection came
    after the issuance of the Court's order. It was not through gamesmanship on the part of Defendant, but
    rather issues of timing. The Court's order and Defendant's opposition crossed each other in the e-filing
    system.
    Having read and considered Defendant's opposition only for the purpose of determining whether or
    not to maintain the TRO, the Court finds that the legal issues raised are more complicated than they
    originally appeared and that the Court has a number of questions regarding the facts. Because of this, the
    Court finds that the balance of hardships and the interests of justice favor dissolution of the TRO and
    expediting the hearing on the preliminary injunction. This is to give both parties a full and fair opportunity to
    be heard on the issues, to give the Court sufficient time to deliberate on these issues, and to issue a
    judgment on the merits expeditiously so that the prevailing party shall obtain the relief necessary to prevent
    irreparable harm.
    United States District Court
    For the Northern District of California

    The Court wishes to clarify that the TRO was not a determination of the merits of this case. The
    Supreme Court "has repeatedly held that the basis for injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been
    irreparable injury and the inadequacy of legal remedies." Weinberger v. Romeo-Barcelo , 456 U.S. 305,
    312 (1982). The limited record usually available on such motions renders a final decision on the merits
    inappropriate. Brown v. Chote, 411 U.S. 452, 456 (1973); see also, Paragould Music Co. v. City of
    Paragould , 738 F.2d 973, 975 (8th Cir.1984); Laurenzo v. Mississippi High School Activities Ass'n, 708
    F.2d 1038, 1043 (5th Cir.1983) (student who challenged a rule which made him ineligible to play baseball
    not a prevailing party because finding on the merits was not required for the issuance of an injunction
    pending appeal); Bly v. McLeod, 605 F.2d 134, 137 (4th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 928, 100
    S.Ct. 1315 (1980) (TRO allowed plaintiffs to vote on absentee ballots but was in no way a determination
    on the merits); cf Nitz v. Otte, 87 F.3d 1321 (9th Cir. 1996) (unpublished) (noting that the issuance of a
    TRO did not constitute a proceeding of substance on the merit).
    In contrast, a federal proceeding may be deemed to have passed beyond the " embryonic stage" if
    the federal court has conducted extensive hearings on a motion for a preliminary injunction. Adultworld
    Bookstore v. City of Fresno, 758 F.2d 1348, 1350-51 (9th Cir.1985).
    The Court is aware, however, that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) provides that a TRO may
    issue ex parte to preserve the status quo. Having reviewed Defendant's opposition and considered the
    facts brought forward by it, the Court questions whether the terms of the TRO actually preserved the status
    quo or altered it by requiring Defendant to take proactive steps to limit the recipients of the complaints and
    to list the names of those complaining. Because in such situations, the Court must be "extremely cautious,"
    Lockheed Missile & Space Co. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F.Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D.Cal. 1995), the
    Court dissolves the TRO and expedites the hearing on the preliminary injunction.
    For the foregoing reasons,
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Temporary Restraining Order of May 10, 2004 is
    DISSOLVED. Plaintiff shall serve and file a motion for preliminary injunction no later than May 12, 2004.
    Defendant shall serve its reply no later than May 13, 2004. Plaintiff shall serve and file a reply no later than
    May 14, 2004. The parties shall appear before the Court on
  • by ChaosDiscord ( 4913 ) on Wednesday May 12, 2004 @03:20PM (#9131635) Homepage Journal
    So wherever I go, businesses refuse my checks, all because some stupid check clearing service got a few reports about me bouncing checks. And just because I defaulted on a few loans here and there no one will loan me any money. This is clearly restraint of trade! People shouldn't be allowed to make decisions about my trustworthiness based on my prior behavior. There certainly shouldn't be anyone tracking that information and sharing it! The information in those databases is just a bunch of random claims from various other people; there are probably errors and maybe a few malicious lies. I've got half a mind to sue these credit report services. I bet I can get an injunction against them reporting anything negative on my credit reports!

    (I realize that in this particular case there are other claims, including harassment, and that credit reporting companies are scum for other reasons, but the analogy just came to me and seemed particularlly relavent.)

"You can have my Unix system when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers." -- Cal Keegan

Working...