Slashdot Mirror

No thanks. They claim that Spam is "Free Speech", and are not on my side. I donated to http://spamcon.org/.

With proof in hand that the court does have jurisdiction you shouldn't have much trouble getting it pushed through. Anyhow IANAL but I drool over the ADA's assistants on TV. :-) Best of luck.

Also, keep in mind that the Spamcon Foundation Legal Fund isn't about this one case. That fund will continue to be useful in the war against spam long after most people have forgotten about this particular case.

The fund is tax deductible. Please donate. CAUCE claims to have signed up over 20,000 people since March 1, 2000, and to have another 23,000 members from prior to that. If just 20% of those people donated just $5, it would make a huge difference. All of us hate spam. Here is a good, tax deductible way to help fight against it.

Hell no we don't. The real, actual costs for Felstein and friends who filed the suit is probably in the $500 range, tops. The real costs for the anti-spammers who were sued is much, much higher - in the $30,000 range, even after Wellborn (the good lawyer [did I just say that?]) dropped his fee's by $40,000 to what I suspect is not much more than just his actual costs.

This has wasted time and money for anti-spammers, and has had no detrimental effect on the spammers except to publicize just how sleazy they are. And it's been clear for a long time that they don't care about their reputation.

The spammers goal wasn't to win in court - I don't think even the Felstein is stupid enough to think that his case would hold up. The spammers goal was to harass, and they've done that without repercussions.

It's possible that this isn't a finished story. Contrary to some /. messages, it's still possible for the defendants to countersue. However, it's not likely, as doing so means spending more money on lawyers. And it's not clear (at least to me) if the SpamCon legal fund would cover that, even assuming enough donations had come in. At this point, only about half of the funds that the NANAE 9 owe has been donated to the fund.

It's important that people donate. http://www.spamcon.org/legalfund/

Thanks slashdot guys for butchering my article. Here is what was cut out:

The antispammers need serious help, their legal bills are huge. The legal funds are running dry at SpamCon. If you've wanted to donate some money to a good cause but haven't, now's your chance to help out!

http://www.spamcon.org/legalfund/
Please donate!

Direct link to donating to their legal defense fund

This victory is bitter sweet. While the judge did throw the case out completely, he didn't rule that the defendants' (anti-spammers) legal costs should be paid by the plaintiff (spammers).

You can help by donating to the legal defense fund established by the SpamCon Foundation. The donations are tax deductible.

Please do donate, if you have any to spare.

Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers

OK, I'll bite:
Link 1, Link 2, Link 3

What? All my Email Accounts, along with the accounts of most everyone I know recieve around 75-90% Spam.

Only my account that subscribes to bugtraq and some other security focus lists doesn't have such a ratio.
Anybody who subscribes to those lists (should be almost everybody B-)) Knows that that doesn't say mutch though, with 20 messages a day from some of those lists, it's crazy.

But I degress, one account I've had for around 4 years now would be broken due to spam if it wasn't for yahoo's nice filters, now I don't see a drop of it. But my 'Bulk Mail' folder will fill up my 4meg account often in about a week, and I only maintain about 100-200k of saved stuff in there. Oh well, I did a little research for other people paying attention to their ammounts of spam (maybe blatent karma whoring, but who cares hehe):

spamfryer?
Spam Cop
Why spam is bad - Apparently a personal spam site
HiWaay - Alabama ISP, keeping records and real time graphs.

Other Interesting stuff:
MyRealBox - Test bed for Novells Mail server development, checkout the license agreement to get a free mail box, seriously, apparently you must pay $10 for every piece of spam you recieve in the box... Please correct me if you see it differently.
The Cost of Spam

sites from google and SpamCon.

"[Y]ou can't condemn the ISPs for doing what they're doing to minimize the abuse." -- Laura Atkins, president of SpamCon

IOW, the ends justify the means. This is dangerous thinking, and IMHO, anyone thinking along these lines is an absolute menace to society. When one starts thinking that the ends justify the means, you get into cases where it becomes acceptable to seize the property of others for the greater good of society, or invade a sovereign nation to depose a dictator because a hypothetical democracy would be better for the people there, or to ban all computing devices to eradicate the scourge of digital copyright infringement. People of this view are not deserving of the benefits of society, for this manner of thinking is antithetical to any and all social forms.

A few of my favorite examples are:

• MyNetWatchman, firewall incident reporting service. Helps to defray spam by finding and reporting compromised hosts internet-wide.
• SpamCon Legal Fund, to help them further the cause.
• TMDA, The GPL spamfilter that actually delivers on the zero spam, zero fasle positive promise.
• SpamHaus, who does a great job keeping lists of both servers and spammers, and is very dedicated
• Your Local Food Bank. courtesy of abuse.net who says: "If you feel that abuse.net has been useful to you, please make a contribution to your local food bank, which needs money a lot more than we ever will. Thanks."
• Distributed Intrusion Detection System, another firewall aggregator, maybe the biggest, free to all

Yes, a legal fund has been set up at http://www.spamcon.org/legalfund/

The SpamCon Foundation has set up a legal fund to aid spamfighters that need legal assistance.

The defendants of this particular EMarketersAmerica suit also benefit from and endorse this fund.

The SpamCon Foundation has set up a legal fund to aid spamfighters that need legal assistance.

The defendants of this particular EMarketersAmerica suit also benefit from and endorse this fund.

Three laws have been in effect in California since 1998. They've not been widely used, but about a dozen cases that I know about have resulted in positive results for the prosecutors. You can follow current cases on the Suespammers discussion list, or read the archives.

The new law appears to be more protectionist than previous ones, which required either (a) opt-out by the recipient, (b) status as an ISP, or (c) evidence of fraud.

--Tom Geller
Founder, SpamCon Foundation

Three laws have been in effect in California since 1998. They've not been widely used, but about a dozen cases that I know about have resulted in positive results for the prosecutors. You can follow current cases on the Suespammers discussion list, or read the archives.

The new law appears to be more protectionist than previous ones, which required either (a) opt-out by the recipient, (b) status as an ISP, or (c) evidence of fraud.

--Tom Geller
Founder, SpamCon Foundation

Three laws have been in effect in California since 1998. They've not been widely used, but about a dozen cases that I know about have resulted in positive results for the prosecutors. You can follow current cases on the Suespammers discussion list, or read the archives.

The new law appears to be more protectionist than previous ones, which required either (a) opt-out by the recipient, (b) status as an ISP, or (c) evidence of fraud.

--Tom Geller
Founder, SpamCon Foundation

Three laws have been in effect in California since 1998. They've not been widely used, but about a dozen cases that I know about have resulted in positive results for the prosecutors. You can follow current cases on the Suespammers discussion list, or read the archives.

The new law appears to be more protectionist than previous ones, which required either (a) opt-out by the recipient, (b) status as an ISP, or (c) evidence of fraud.

--Tom Geller
Founder, SpamCon Foundation

First off, let's assume that DNC lists work for phone and paper direct marketing. (We all know that they don't, but let's pretend.)

DNE lists *can't* work, for several reasons:

* There's not a one-to-one correlation between people and email addresses. Many (most?) people have several addresses: Even AOL members get up to eight. So do those people have to "unsubscribe" eight times? What about those of us who invent new email addresses for different uses? It's not unusual for someone to have dozens or even hundreds of addresses.

* Let's not forget role addresses: root, webmaster, postmaster, etc. Someone would have to put those on the DNE list.

* What about the poor schmuck who gets "fallback", i.e. [anything]@domain.com? That's the default in many systems.

* Some email addresses have several people connected to them -- for example, mailing lists. Who unsubscribes those?

* Some email addresses have *no* people connected to them -- for example, those controlling processes. Would anyone even know to add them to the DNE?

Some proposals have included a provision that allows one to add entire domains to a DNE list. These are somewhat better, but they have several problems with them. For one, it would trump the individual preferences of those using the domain.

But ultimately, the main problem is that *the burden shouldn't be on the recipient*. Unlike phone (a common carrier) or postal mailboxes (government property), email boxes are private property, requiring private funds. Access without permission is trespass.

BTW, see law.spamcon.org for a list of states with current antispam laws. I live in one with an opt-in law: California Business and Professions Code 17538.45.

--Tom Geller
Founder, SpamCon Foundation

First off, let's assume that DNC lists work for phone and paper direct marketing. (We all know that they don't, but let's pretend.)

DNE lists *can't* work, for several reasons:

* There's not a one-to-one correlation between people and email addresses. Many (most?) people have several addresses: Even AOL members get up to eight. So do those people have to "unsubscribe" eight times? What about those of us who invent new email addresses for different uses? It's not unusual for someone to have dozens or even hundreds of addresses.

* Let's not forget role addresses: root, webmaster, postmaster, etc. Someone would have to put those on the DNE list.

* What about the poor schmuck who gets "fallback", i.e. [anything]@domain.com? That's the default in many systems.

* Some email addresses have several people connected to them -- for example, mailing lists. Who unsubscribes those?

* Some email addresses have *no* people connected to them -- for example, those controlling processes. Would anyone even know to add them to the DNE?

Some proposals have included a provision that allows one to add entire domains to a DNE list. These are somewhat better, but they have several problems with them. For one, it would trump the individual preferences of those using the domain.

But ultimately, the main problem is that *the burden shouldn't be on the recipient*. Unlike phone (a common carrier) or postal mailboxes (government property), email boxes are private property, requiring private funds. Access without permission is trespass.

BTW, see law.spamcon.org for a list of states with current antispam laws. I live in one with an opt-in law: California Business and Professions Code 17538.45.

--Tom Geller
Founder, SpamCon Foundation

From he NANAE FAQ

[Rule #0: Spam is theft.]

Rule #1: Spammers lie.
Rule #2: If you think a spammer is telling the truth, see Rule #1.
Rule #3: Spammers are stupid.

(Krugel's Corollary: Spammer lies are really stupid.)

"Opt-In Marketing" hits Rule #1, Rule #2 and the corollary - in its name alone. And by getting that far with just its name, I'd say that trips Rule #3 to boot.

There's a fascinating thread in news.admin.net-abuse.email ("COURT: Opt in Marketing vs [SPEWS, SPAMHAUS, SPAMCOP, QUEST(sic), COVISTA and Steve Linford(of Idaho?)]" about what Scelson's up to. This article in nanae provides an interesting perspective.

Between Scelson biting off more than he can chew (and what a coincidence, now showing up on the press's radar), and Alan Ralsky being sued by Verizon, this could be a long, hot summer for the spammers.

Me? I'm keeping a bag of popcorn handy whenever I read nanae. Seeing these two go down in court will be a delight. I can only hope a certain Mr. Haberli is next on the docket. That'd be three major spam rings in serious d00d00.

This suit has been making the rounds in the anti-spam circles, like the SpamCom mailing list and the news.admin.net-abuse.email Usenet group.

It is good to see things heading in this direction. The MonsterHut situation stunk very badly for a long time, and it's good to see them getting smacked for such irresponsible behavior.
-----
Apple hardware still too expensive for you? How about a raffle ticket?

I've read about this before. Here are some more sites that have info about Nadine. Honet
The EZBoard thread
Article with a bit of info
And one last one
That's it

Investigate your state laws here: http://law.spamcon.org/us-laws/index.shtml

Some of the states allow quite significant damages, for example, California law allows "damages of $50 per message, up to $25,000 per day, or its actual damages, whichever is greater."

If you are in a state with anti-spam laws you could really lay a hurtin' on them, and might even collect some dough in the process. (Although, given that we know they are unscrupulous, collecting will not be easy.)

Here are some other resources:
http://smallclaim.info/
http://www.spamcon.org/
http://www.aboutspam.com/
http://http://www.cauce.org/about/resources.shtml

Investigate your state laws here: http://law.spamcon.org/us-laws/index.shtml

Some of the states allow quite significant damages, for example, California law allows "damages of $50 per message, up to $25,000 per day, or its actual damages, whichever is greater."

If you are in a state with anti-spam laws you could really lay a hurtin' on them, and might even collect some dough in the process. (Although, given that we know they are unscrupulous, collecting will not be easy.)

Here are some other resources:
http://smallclaim.info/
http://www.spamcon.org/
http://www.aboutspam.com/
http://http://www.cauce.org/about/resources.shtml

Oops I meant this link the other one was just for missouri.

Checkout Spamcon to see if there is a local law allowing you to sue spammers.

Here's a tip. Instead of setting up dummy yahoo/hotmail accounts for your spam mail, try http://dea.spamcon.org. They allow you to set up as many as 3 cuurently active random e-mail address that are forwarded to your primary account. They can be turned on/off at will (once you've gotten the password to the porn site). With some nice JavaScript copy/paste functionality, it is very easy to use without having to remember some rather cryptic e-mail addresses.

No person or entity conducting business in this state shall facsimile (fax) or cause to be faxed, or e-mail or cause to be e-mailed, documents consisting of unsolicited advertising material for the lease, sale, rental, gift offer, or other disposition of any realty, goods, services...

Umm.. interesting that a candidate for governor would violate his state's own laws in such and open way. The California anti-spam law expressly prohibits forging e-mail headers as I read it.

Wouldn't such blatant disregard for the law disqualify him from the race?

Vortran out

But you still have to file, and see the case through to the end. And then collect. Simply put, legal action is difficult. But each and every one of you can do it.

But you still have to file, and see the case through to the end. And then collect. Simply put, legal action is difficult. But each and every one of you can do it.

SpamCon (formerly Suespammers.org) has some good articles on this.

It's not the prosecution kit you were hoping for, but does provide step-by-step instructions on how to deal with spammers, all the way to prosecution.

The reason a lot of geeks receive SPAM is the same reason I do ... registration of a domain. A live email address on a domain registrar is excuse to have every cheap SPAM cannon leveled at you.

Also, folks seem a bit confused. THERE IS NO NATIONAL SPAM LEGISLATION. It never passed. Not at all. The reason a lot of spammers want to say they are in compliance with opt-out legislation is that it legitimizes their existance. Let's not forget that SPAM is STEALING. You pay for the junk mail that shows up.

Check it out here...

They're not quite the same thing, but disposable email addresses can be used "anonymously" -- and you can throw them out when you're done with them.

--Tom

I saw it as "Java on Forgecast Dreams On".

:)

--Tom Geller, Executive Director

SpamCon Foundation

This afternoon,I found a link to the SpamCon Foundation, whose mission is "to protect email as a viable communication medium by reducing the amount of unwanted and unsolicited email, or "spam", that crosses private networks, while ensuring that wanted and requested email reaches its recipients."

If you hate SPAM, and if you're reading this thread, you probably do, you may want to check it out.