MAPS and Experian Settle Lawsuit

dbrower writes: "Experian is trumpeting a settlement with MAPS here, where MAPS agreed not to blackhole them without a court order, and agreed that Experian didn't need to do opt-in. Looks like a loss to me."

Comments

Today is a bad day for all email users

[hillct]

Let there be no question about it. This is a victory for spammers. I hope MAPS elects to keep a list of companies which they are unable to block through their service. Then I could grok the list and be happy once again.

--CTH

Re:Today is a bad day for all email users

[Wavicle]

The difference is that the black hole list is a list of hosts which you are specifically advised to block.

The "we can't block these people because they took us to court" list is simply a voluntary disclosure. If MAPS is not advocating that they be blocked, it looks to me like they are within their settlement.

The Lawyers can still come back, but at least MAPS would at this point have a chance of having the case dismissed before they had to defend themselves at great expense.

Advertising is Pollution

[ewhac]

...And spamming is the worst type of pollution; they make you pay for the sludge with your connectivity, time, and frustration.

It would be interesting to know why MAPS decided to cave in. Perhaps a Slashdot interview is in order?

I'd like to see MAPS publish a list of IPs it's forbidden to add to its main blocklist, so that we could manually add them to our MAPS config.

Schwab

Re:Advertising is Pollution

[Amazing Quantum Man]

It would be interesting to know why MAPS decided to cave in.
<HUMOR>
Maybe they didn't want their credit rating trashed? ;-)
</HUMOR>

HUMOR tags have been added for the humor impaired, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Re:Advertising is Pollution

[dgreenwood]

MAP's take on this is here
EXACTIS SUIT AGAINST MAPS DISMISSED October 3, 2001 - REDWOOD CITY, CA - Mail Abuse Prevention System, LLC (MAPSSM) announced today that Experian Emarketing, Inc. (formerly Exactis.com) has dismissed all of the claims which it had previously filed against MAPSSM. "A settlement has been reached in which Experian has committed to requiring their clients to provide them with lists which contain only those email addresses for which they have obtained the addressee's permission to send them email", explained Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., MAPS'SM Director of Legal and Public Affairs. "They have further committed to address and resolve any complaints and concerns which may arise as a result of any mailings they do for either themselves or their clients."

Re:Advertising is Pollution

[Ace905]

Advertising may be pollution, but the greater evil is giving that kind of power to any single organization.

Since so many companies voluntarily broke their own privacy agreements last week ; regardless of major media icons denouncing the American fight against Personal Freedoms - I think it's disgusting that normal people would volunteer their data be channelled through one organization ; no matter what that data is comprised of. Remember, the point of Encryption isn't to hide something illegal or immoral - it's to ensure privacy from corporate and Powerful-Organizations interests.

Everyone arguing for personal freedoms through privacy quotes Hitler's choice to brand Jews with Stars, and everyone else says "that's too far fetched". How far fetched is the US Government performing keyword searches on all of your email? Now they actually admit to it.

Eggplants!

Re:Advertising is Pollution

[Ace905]

Whoa whoa there samurai cowboy, I'm a free individual to tell you not to do it. Welcome to the free world (Otherwise known as, 'Not just USA').

I'm also free to say you can't, but I didn't.

Eggplants!

winners or loosers?

[Rev.LoveJoy]

I have a hard time looking at MAPS vs. the spammers as us agsinst them anymore. For me this has turned into one of those moral dilemas wherein the actions taken by maps are nearly as deplorable as those they are attempting to defeat.

Do not misunderstand, I am no sympathizer of the spammers. I do not think what they do warrants first ammendmend protection. However, I do not think that MAPS arbitrarily black holing companies who it cannot strong arm with threats really deserves our respect anymore.

A good idea gone awry.

Cheers,
- RLJ

Re:winners or loosers?

[crucini]

You could be missing the big picture. Every mail admin for a large site has to maintain some kind of blocklist to avoid being inundated with spam. Almost everyone complaining about such lists is already benefiting from them and doesn't realize it.

MAPS is a step past these ad-hoc lists because it has some semblance of due process and some method for removal. MAPS understands that most domains harboring spammers don't realize what they're doing and will change their ways.

Take away MAPS and the spamming domain or netblock will end up permanently blocked by thousands of large sites. And nobody has time to review these blocklists.

They didn't say there's no opt-in

[GrenDel Fuego]

They said that they don't have to use a double opt-in. In other words, no confirmation step of the opt-in.

Re:They didn't say there's no opt-in

[alecto]

By calling that a "double opt-in," instead of what it is, opt-in with confirmation (i.e. making sure that the person doing the opting-in is in control of the email address so opted), you are linguistically playing right into the hands of the spam-meisters.

Re:They didn't say there's no opt-in

[PacMan]

They said that they don't have to use a double opt-in. In other words, no confirmation step of the opt-in.

So you think it's OK to allow me to go to their site and "opt-in" with your email address?

That's what removing the confirmation step allows.

Re:They didn't say there's no opt-in

[GrenDel Fuego]

No, I actually agree that the double opt-in is much better. But that dosen't change the fact that the slashdot post says that the opt-in isn't required, when in fact it is (just not a double opt-in).

I don't get it!

[Kaz Kylheku]

MAPS only maintains a database that provides information to others, who seek that information.

That database expresses an opinion: in the opinion of MAPS, the networks listed in the database are suspected of passing through or generating spam.

Shouldn't this be protected by the First Amendment?

Re:I don't get it!

[btempleton]

Whether it's protected by the 1st amendment is an interesting question. Most probably yes, but not certainly. Clearly the court that issued the TRO didn't think so, since prior restraint on protected speech is supposed to be verboten.

However, this is not actually relevant. They used the threat of the courts to make a settlement agreement, and settlement agreements are not affected by the first amendment.

In theory, MAPS could have fought it, and probably (though not certainly) have won on 1st amendment grounds, after a few years and at great expense.

They always said they were willing to test that out but clearly not that willing. They may be more keen to test it on an actual spammer rather than an operator of single opt-in mailing lists.

How might the 1st amendment not protect them? I haven't read the TRO, which will have some reasons. However, they might rule that blacklisting isn't a protected activity, even though it involves speech. I wouldn't agree, but I could see courts ruling that way.

Re:I don't get it!

[dillon_rinker]

Not if it's considered slanderous or libelous.

"Here is a database of people who we think will spam you. We think spam is equivalent to theft."

I think if you hired a good attorney you could come up with verbiage that would be legally defensible. Maybe something like "These are people who we believe will email you commercial message without your explicit permission."

Re:I don't get it!

[Reality Master 101]

Experian only maintains a database that provides information to others, who seek that information. That database expresses an opinion: in the opinion of Experian, the people listed in the database have good or bad credit.

Shouldn't that be protected by the first amendment and they should be able to do anything they want with it, whether it's accurate or not?

Or to put it another way, should I be able to put up a web site that is a "blacklist" of employees who are incompetent? What if someone put you on that list unfairly? That's called defamation.

Free speech doesn't mean you're allowed to say anything you want, regardless of damage.

Re:I don't get it!

[Velex]

MAPS only maintains a database that provides information to others, who seek that information. That database expresses an opinion: in the opinion of MAPS, the networks listed in the database are suspected of passing through or generating spam. Shouldn't this be protected by the First Amendment?

The First Amendment is merely a bunch of words on a piece of paper. It can't protect anything. Instead, it is the people that protect their own liberties of free speech. What this decision means is that the people, unless they resist (which they won't), have allowed their government to become more of a corporate republic than a democratic republic.

Welcome to the Corporate States of America, where the corporate right to censor out trumps the individual right to press. In the year C.E. 1791, the people believed that every person had the right to speak and publish his mind freely, so they drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights as their supreme law of the land. The times have changed however. To become a valuable player in the world of fast-paced business, like those corporate-sponsored business classes promise you will become, you must become submissive to the will of the corporation you subscribe to. The Bill of Rights is antiquated by this new workplace, where it is common for people to think of employment as selling themselves to someone they hate, doing something they don't like, for a cause they don't approve of. In the Corporate States of America, the people don't believe in the right of free expression, so it atrophies and disappears like an unexercised muscle.

For Libertarians such as me, it is a very distressing thing to see such egalitarian fervor which was displayed at the outset of the United States of America wither into the Orwellian, business-driven culture expressed in that same country today. Unfortunatly, we Libertarians and egalitarian thinkers are a minority, and it seems as though, in the wake of September 11, our goals will be shattered by a powerful majority, whose corporations and sometimes families have been damaged by the unseen enemy. It seems futile to resist; sometimes I only wait until I am assymilated.

But I know that I won't be. I believe steadfastly in egalitarian Libertarianism, which forbids this kind of bullying by corporations against disinterested parties. Simply because some advertiser can buy law-expert whores shouldn't give them the right to censor an organization that can't buy the same whores to do battle. Apparently it does, because the judge is incompetent. The judge was appointed by a president who was incompetent. The president was elected by a people who are incompetent.

Re:I don't get it!

[benedict]

Corporatism isn't Orwellian -- Orwell's dystopia was a socialist one. It's more like _Brave New World_ than like _1984_. So it's, uh, Huxleian.

Re:I don't get it!

[btempleton]

If it's clearly an opinion, it is not defamation. If it could be viewed as a statement of fact, it can be defamation, unless of course, it's true. MAPS wordings have been more like factual statements -- these sites, they say, are known to send [some definition of] spam.

They might have felt at risk for a defamation ruling. Experian's own databases are highly regulated, subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, so they won't feel a lot of 1st amendment sympathy. Even with the FCRA, they are often wrong and hurt people getting credit who can't afford to sue.

I don't know the rules, but I could see trouble if you make a statement you claim is opinion, but everybody is treating it as a factual judgement. In this case, Experian claimed they have sent some 40 billion E-mails and MAPS admitted there were less than a dozen spam complaints. That's a lower ratio than just about any site out there, so this may have played a role, though if so, I don't know why they didn't settle earlier.

Re:I don't get it!

[Phroggy]

However, they might rule that blacklisting isn't a protected activity, even though it involves speech. I wouldn't agree, but I could see courts ruling that way.

I seem to recall hearing that the courts have ruled that publishing a list of names and addresses of doctors who perform abortions, and crossing their names off when they get murdered, is protected speech.

However, the MAPS RBL is machine-readable, not human-readable (AFAIK the RBL is not published in any human-readable form; it's only available in the form of replies to specific DNS queries, so you have to know what IP you're querying for).

Re:I don't get it!

[Dwonis]

AFAIK the RBL is not published in any human-readable form.

Nope. You can get zone transfers, which can be made quite human-readable. Of course, this costs money (it takes a fair amount to bandwidth to do zone transfers), but it's still offered.

Re:I don't get it!

[Trepidity]

I don't think that's what the poster was claiming. The TRO (temporary restraining order) he mentioned was issued by the court prior to this settlement. Prior restraint (such as that caused by the TRO) has been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in cases involving protected speech (and there is a fairly high threshold for this - higher than the threshold for the final ruling). Therefore the court that issued the order presumably justified its order by including reasons that this was not prior restrain on protected speech.

Re:I don't get it!

[pjrc]

MAPS only maintains a database that provides information to others, who seek that information.

Vixie (who runs MAPS) is the CTO of a backbone internet provider (abovenet) which just happens to be one of those who "seek information". They have a regular history of blocking traffic... of course without explicit permission (and usually without even the knowledge) of downstream ISPs and their unsuspecting customers.

This is quite a bit different than end users making an informed decision to subscribe to the "service". Likewise, some ISPs subscribe to MAPS on their user's behalf, sometimes without informing them, and other times while leading them to believe the service doesn't impact non-spam messages.

That database expresses an opinion: in the opinion of MAPS, the networks listed in the database are suspected of passing through or generating spam.

This is true. ...at least true if "passing through" includes lots of unsuspecting non-spam businesses and users who simply connect to those spamming-suspected networks.

The lie is in much of the promotion regarding how accurate these opinions are, and the lack of disclosure regarding the non-spam users who are also intentionally blocked. It's quite questionable how well MAPS blocks spam. At the same time, there is no question that MAPS has been responsible for disrupting non-spam communication time and time again.

For a good taste of the deceptive nature of MAPS, check out their Realtime Blacklist Policy Page. They claim four there are four ways to become blacklisted:

• Spam Origination
• Spam Relaying
• Spam Support Services
• Netblock Inheritance

The section about "netblock inheritance" claims that some unsecting users obtains IP address space that was once occupied by a spammer. Note that it doesn't say that they will discontinue listing the non-spammer who is blocked due to "netblock inheritance". But that's only scratching the surface of the deception.

What that MAPS policy page doesn't clearly explain (or really explain at all) is their regular practice of listing large netblocks, which contain large numbers of non-spammers. It isn't explained that MAPS uses this strong-arm tactic to pressure ISPs that are hosting some spammers by blocking not only the spammer but all of the ISP's unsuspecting non-spam customers.

MAPS's policy page also doesn't explain that there is no notification to these innocent and unsuspecting bystanders that their communication is being intentionally disrupted simply because some other customer at their ISP is sending spam.

MAPS's policy page doens't state that they will refuse to stop discrupting messages to non-spammers when it is brought to their attention that a non-spammer has been affected by a netblock that also contains a spammer. (yes, believe it or not, Vixie/MAPS has a long history of refusing to un-block non-spam users when they complain that they are blocked) It certainly doesn't state that it is their intention to block messages to non-spammers and spammers alike, if they happen to be hosted at an ISP that (in MAPS's rather extreem and un-accountable opinions) isn't working hard enough to stop spam.

Sure, MAPS is entitled to their opinions, and they have the free speech right to share those opinions. Where the line is crossed (IMHO) is:

• Upstream providers, not end users, subscribing to the service... thereby forcing MAPS's rather extreem opinions on end users without giving them a choice.
• Misrepresenting their blacklisting policy to imply that they only target spammers and those directly involved in spam... when in truth they intentionally target unsuspecting non-spammers (and never even notify them) simply because they inadvertently chose the same ISP as a spammer did (and the ISP didn't respond by immediately cutting service to an existing customer who MAPS says is a spammer)

Re:I don't get it!

[pjrc]

And while I'm on my soapbox... take a look at this this MAPS press release. They write:

...the RBL, MAPS' database of IP addresses which have been proven to originate or facilitate the sending of unwanted email...

Even without the words "have been proven", this is an bold faced LIE. MAPS has a regular practice of blocking large groups of IP numbers (often an entire ISP), with the intention of disruption to the spammer and many non-spammer customers at that same ISP.

When these non-spammers complain to MAPS that their IP numbers, which certainly don't originate spam and don't facilitate the spammer's activity, have been blocked, the response from MAPS it that these non-spammer need to seek a different ISP.

To even get close to the truth of how MAPS really operates, perhaps it should read:

...the RBL, MAPS' database of IP addresses which may be originating or facilitating unwanted email, or have some loose association with present or prior unwanted email, including unsuspecting users and businesses who happen to be customers at the same ISP as a suspected spammer.

Of course, there's no requirement to tell the truth in a press release... but this lie is about as blantant as Microsoft's recent press releases claiming IIS is attacked because it's the market leader (when apache is the #1 web server by a considerable margin).

Re:I don't get it!

[ryanwright]

However, they might rule that blacklisting isn't a protected activity, even though it involves speech.

But MAPS is not blacklisting anybody. Server administrators are, and I doubt anybody could sue over the right to communicate with your server. Just as I do not have to answer my phone, my server does not have to answer your request. Although I wouldn't be surprised if some asinine judge ruled otherwise.

All MAPS does is provide a list of known spammers. This SHOULD be a protected activity. Unfortunately, the bottom feeding lawyers have blurred everything to the point that none of our rights are certain anymore.

Re:I don't get it!

[Stephen Samuel]

Orwell's dystopia used a nominally socialist society as an example. The lessons to be taken from it can be applied to a Capitalist world just as cleanly. Even Adams (the godfather of Capitalism) pointed out that a large enough corporation is almost indistinguisable from a government, where it comes to market distortions.

The way that I put it is:
The biggest difference between socialism (really stalinist communism) and mass-merger capitalism is how obvious it is who holds the reins.

Re:I don't get it!

[crucini]

It's quite questionable how well MAPS blocks spam [cnet.com].

That link is worthless. It's basically an infomercial for a commercial spam filtering service. Reading between the lines, they probably have a rule-based or fuzzy logic approach that judges messages on the fly. MAPS obviously does not do that - they list IP addresses of bad guys. Based on this difference, the article claims that MAPS only blocks "2% of spam". Sounds like they generated their own spam-like messages, and tested different software's efficiency in stopping them. Of course MAPS is not going to filter a message based on spam-like content. Likewise, the article claims that MAPS wrongly rejected non-spam mail as spam. Again, MAPS does not claim that an individual message is spam. Rather, it says that it comes from a spam-friendly IP address.

As for your complaint about listing large blocks, do you think any other approach is really practical? Spam-friendly netblock owners will move the spammers around to evade the ban. I don't see how MAPS can get into the business of determining "innocence". If someone harbors spam, he is dishonest, and his statements about who uses IP addresses within his range should be seen as ruses, rather than honest reporting.

Re:I don't get it!

[benedict]

That's an excellent point. (And thank you for making the distinction between Stalinism and other forms of socialism/communism, a distinction that's too often obliterated due to anti-left ideology.)

MAPS must have been scared

[btempleton]

Making this settlement goes against all their principles, so Experian must have made them afraid for their very existence with this.

As noted, unless the agreement is very broad, they can certainly name on their web site the companies they have been compelled not to block, and people configuring their own mail filters could decide case by case whether to include them.

However, if they made an automated list, effectively an alternate blacklist, I could see a court saying they were violating the spirit of the agreement, unless they wrote it carefully to allow them to do this.

However, oddly enough, it could be to experian's detriment to have it happen manually. If site admins manually put in blocking for their domains, it will be almost impossible for them to get that blocking removed except over a very long period of time, since each admin would have to manually reconfig.

Of course, they could change the IP address and domain they send mail from to get around that. Somebody (not MAPS) could provide a service that simply lists mail sending IP addresses used by experian, no other comment made.

Re:MAPS must have been scared

[nehril]

hmn... what could a giant company with more money that God and more lawyers than Satan possibly do to scare anyone?

Perhaps a nice, friendly reminder was sent that Experian could possibly sic an entire legal firm on *each* of the MAPS team members, attacking them personally with dozens of lawsuits that would bankrupt them immediately. Or perhaps another reminder that credit reports sometimes have errors that could cause your bank account and credit cards to all be cancelled, not to mention your house and car might be repossessed. Such errors are usually caught in fixed in only a couple of years.

Then there's the small matter of the long cooperation between credit rating companies and various law enforcement agents. How far could that go... hmn.

Re:MAPS must have been scared

[L-Train8]

MAPS has a press release about this as well, located here. It sounds like there was more going on than mentioned in Experian's press release. MAPS says there were months of negotiations, that both sides made comprimises, and that Experian has made "several changes to ensure that only those who want to receive their email receive it, and to respond to concerns from those who don't."

While not getting everything it wanted, it seems MAPS did get something out of the deal, and Experian is playing at least a little bit nicer.

Re:MAPS must have been scared

[crucini]

Making this settlement goes against all their principles...

I think your concern might be excessive. On their homepage, MAPS lists three 'truces': Exactis/Experian, Media3 and Harris. The net effect is that in each case the parties came to an agreement. MAPS claims they got some concessions from Experian, though not as much as they hoped for.

As noted, unless the agreement is very broad, they can certainly name on their web site the companies they have been compelled not to block...

And the MAPS press release ends with:

And, of course, we are still free to choose to accept or reject email from them on our own personal networks.

which seems like a pretty strong hint.

And I agree with you about local, ad-hoc blocklists. This is the ultimate reality behind all the bickering over MAPS - it is just a proxy for the judgement of individual sysadmins. Ban MAPS, and everyone must spend time maintaining blocklists. And it will be easier to get on than to get off.

Re:Double opt-in? What the hell?

[Todd Knarr]

Think about what happens if someone else subscribes you to a mailing list with a high volume. Single opt-in means your mailbox starts getting filled up with mail without giving you any chance to avoid it. Do you really want to enable people to kill your e-mail easily by just signing you up for a few dozen multi-megabyte-per-day single-opt-in mailing lists?

The people�s internet?

[andres32a]

"In addition, neither Experian eMarketing nor its clients will be required to employ the practice of double opt-in (process by which a consumer must reaffirm their permission before they are added to an e-mail list) demanded by MAPS in November 2000." This is just amazing. They shut down napster while they still allow Experian to continue SPAMing. Is this really the internet we all want??? Will this be the kind of legislation we will be seing over the net??

access.db

[jmd!]

Well, experian.com just made it in to my access.db, along with everyone else who's sued maps in the past. Do they have any mail servers outside that domain, anyone know?

Here's a list of some other companies not understanding what MAPS is and trying to stop them with bogus lawsuits. I hope they don't accidently wind up in your access.db (or whatever your MTA uses).

yesmail.com
harrisinteractive.com
blackice.com
media3.com
247media.com
experian.com
exactis.com
liveprayer.com <--- accused MAPS of being an agent of Satan

To block these in sendmail, use the 550 5.7.1 error code in your access.db file, like so:

yesmail.com <tab> 550 5.7.1 Spammer suing MAPS.

Re:access.db

[BadDoggie]

Just so we're clear on this, that would be, "May Experian ROT-26 in every single blackhole list..."

Wouldn't want to have to violate one bad law while violating some Amendment by adding them to certain .db files, right?

woof.

Re:Double opt-in? What the hell?

[AndyS]

If I don't sign up for a mailing list, I should not suffer hundreds and hundreds of spam from it.

If I signed you up to 100 such mailing lists, would you rather get 100 verification mails that you could just delete, or 10,000 mails from the mailing lists that you'd have to unsubscribe from manually?

The idea of double opt-in isn't designed to make people's lives inconvenient - all it needs is a quick reply. It's pretty easy, I do it all the time. You can even do it from a different e-mail address. However, it does protect those who suffer from massive mailbombing.

Re:Double opt-in? What the hell?

[Reality Master 101]

Do you really want to enable people to kill your e-mail easily by just signing you up for a few dozen multi-megabyte-per-day single-opt-in mailing lists?

Fine, if these theoretical multi-megabyte-per-day mailing lists are being abused in that way, then they can choose to be a double opt-in. But insisting that every mailing list in the world be a double opt-in or they get blacklisted is radical and absurd. That's when I start yelling "Whoa!!!!" and saying the "freedom fighters" have started looking like the "oppressors".

History on this case

[hillct]

In the spirit of Karma Whoring :-)

Here's some history on this case. It features articles from various stages in the case. Has anyone found the text of the complaint or injunction? still looking...

--CTH

Re:Double opt-in? What the hell?

[RollingThunder]

I believe what they call "double opt-in", is this:

You punch in an email address at the webform.
Their system sends a confirmation email, with a token of some sort, to that address.
You reply, with said token, and the address is confirmed and added to the list.

It's not that hard, and it also allows you to get your ass off a list even if you don't send from that address any more - if you get the emails forwarded, it's all good.

Now, if MAPS was demanding something more (and I half expect they may have, it seems to me they've been constantly increasing their requirements), that's unreasonable. But simply verifying that the stated account really wants on the list isn't a huge deal, nor is it hard for the user - AND it pays off for the sending servers, as they spend less time spinning their wheels on bogus/broken addresses.

For those who are confused:

[Nindalf]

Experian is a company that sells crack by spamming millions of schoolchildren. MAPS (the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) has refused to provide their drug-friendly mailing lists because they insist that crack is not a psychedelic drug. However, Experian threatened to take them to court with the argument that if they can include marijuana under their umbrella, then the definition is broad enough to include crack.

Wisely recognizing that both sides are better off not attracting the attention of the courts, MAPS has apparently backed down.

A loss indeed. You can expect many of your peaceful local potheads to become violent criminal crackheads any day now.

I hope this clears up any misconceptions you may have had from the shamefully vague top-level story. I'm a little fuzzy on some of the details myself, but as usual, trying a few likely domain names gave me access to the essentials.

Re:Double opt-in? What the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

The realistic problem is that if spammers could claim legitimacy by being single opt-in, they'd just claim they got your address when you (or someone else) requested you be added. What, you want to be removed from their list? Sure no problem... *wink* *wink*

Double opt-in is the only method that lets YOU as the user have a real way of saying yes or no and holding onto your own email address. Honestly, meaningful opt-in doesn't even start before double opt-in. And single opt-in can be WORSE than opt-out because of the pretended compliance scenario cited in the first paragraph.

well... where do we go from here?

[digitalmuse]

"We are very pleased with the settlement agreement and believe it reflects the validation of Experian's e-mail marketing standards and that we remain at the forefront of consumer privacy and protection,'' said Tom Detmer president and general manager of Experian eMarketing Services. ``This settlement confirms that the privacy practices we have in place are responsible, accountable and in the best interests of the public and the marketplace. We will continue to offer the double opt-in solution for those clients who determine it is the right permissioning practice for their business."
well, since we will only be seeing more cases like this in the future as these spam-whores use the courts as a shield to protect themselves from MAPS and other public-service mail filtering tools, what are we going to do from here?
I for one would be quite interested in finding a listing of companies that have fought these charges in court and through miss-representing their datum and hiring bigger and better lawyer-weasels, have made themselves immune from public ban lists. Does anyone know of any existing services like this? I for one would be glad just to have a plain html listing of folks like Experian who have won in the courts to keep them selves off of RBLs and the like. I'd be even more keen on a nice XML page that I can parse with a quick script and have update my mail-server's ban lists. anyone want to make me a very happy admin? c'mon, please?

Re:well... where do we go from here?

[HiThere]

Add a neural net program the the mail programs that can learn to recognize what you consider spam?

Re:Spam?

[netik]

What about this for a solution:

• Publish the list where everyone can see it (i.e. on MAPS website)
  
• If companies object to being on the blacklist, remove them from the RBL but continue to list them on the MAPS website.
  

Companies can't complain in this aspect, because it's like consumer reports, and that's protected free speech.

Re:Double opt-in? What the hell?

[gol64738]

what? do you have any idea what you're talking about? obviously not.

look, MAPS by itself affects no one. It's the ADMINS that make MAPS work. an ADMIN must implement the blackhole list via DNS or sendmail for anything to happen.

don't you think that ADMINS know what's best for the network they control? you obviously know nothing about system administration, go crawl into a hole.

Other filter lists...

[gavcam]

If a spammer gets taken out of one filter list then you can always rely on it still being in the other lists.

I use

• relays.ordb.org
• or.orbl.org
• inputs.orbz.org
• outputs.orbz.org
• spews.relays.osirusoft.com

to keep my inbox clean.

Winning one battle doesn't win the war!

Re:Other filter lists...

[VB]

(The parent has not been modded high enough yet as of this post)

Regardless of the legal dispute, MAPS should have their implementation for filtering spammers removed from all MTAs. This is a frustrating problem, and is a major time-eater for diligent admins and an even bigger one for end-users on networks not overseen by such admins. Sendmail has removed MAPS support, reaffirming my commitment to stick with it since Sendmail's security record as been much improved over the past 3 years and it is great free software. A bitch to configure, but hey; when you run Slackware you know what you're getting into. I found it very alarming and frustrating when I decided to put a stop to what appears to be a significant increase in spam lately by finally getting around to implementing MAPS, only to discover the new fee-based implementation of MAPS. This pricing/policy change is completely antithetical to what anti-spam software should stand for! They started out as this "crusader" organization making software to rid the 'Net of the filth that proliferates as spam, then stick you with a fee? Quite unsamaritan and anti-community for a service that purports to assist the community, only to later suck you into payments once they've garnered enough of a following. Exploitative in the vilest sense.

ORDB is a godsend! I put this on my servers 2 days ago and spam has all but ceased. 10 trickled through the first day and were added to the list. ORDB's policy is effective, efficient and fair and it doesn't bog down the server or the network in any noticeable way. It's a quick 30 minute configure for a moderate sendmail admin, and yields immediate results. Granted it doesn't provide known spammer protections, but how can you do that?

The onus on stopping spammers is on ISPs through their AUPs. Once they make it crystal clear that using their network services for stupid things like Spam, port scanning, and defacing web-pages is going to immediately ban them from that service, the Spam and other useless 'Net activities will stop and these idiots will quietly go back to the middle-high school where they once worked and pick up their green weenies, Mr. Clean, and get those toilets clean and those hallway tiles shiny again, where their skills/socialization are most appropriate.

Clearly, we can't count on our Congress to improve the Spam sitation...

Another enemy of MAPS

[Hanzie]

Reverend Keller of liveprayer.com is another enemy of our friends at MAPS. Apparently, you could sign anybody up to be on their e-mail list.

Donation address of liveprayer.com:

6660 46th AVE North
St.Petersburg, Florida 33709

For fun, read the letter he posted to brag about suckering a young girl out of her babysitting money, and getting her to work her family and friends for him. THIS is social engineering.

Re:Another enemy of MAPS

[Hanzie]

Take careful note of their street address.

I wonder if keller "has 2 horns and spake as a dragon?"

Re:Double opt-in? What the hell?

[Reality Master 101]

What gives you the right to tell a sysadmin what they can and cannot block?

Because ISPs are lazy like everyone else. They will just trust that MAPS has not become corrupt.

Put it this way: do you think Experian should be able to publish anything they want about a person regardless of accuracy? After all, banks have the choice whether to use Experian or not.

This is actually pretty real world, because all three credit agencies suck when it comes to accuracy (which is not surprising when you have 150 million records). That's why they need government regulation because of the power they hold.

Believe me, I am very anti-government regulation, but blacklists of any kind are very apt to be abusive.

maybe a blacklist would work on a web page

[mj6798]

Currently, to many lawyers and judges, MAPS probably looks like an obscure, deeply technical means by which some group of people is "preventing" another group of people from getting mail.

But these people understand the concept of a "web page". If, instead, something like MAPS were based on a list of domain names found on web pages, I think people would have a much harder time "shutting it down". After all, it would be human readable speech, and if people mine that data for their E-mail programs, well, so be it.

MAPS no better than the spammers

[terrymr]

MAPS' tactics appear no better than those sending the spam - All kinds of innocent sites have fallen off the internet for daring to be on the same IP block as somebody who sent spam.

Requiring a double opt in for mailing lists isn't exactly spam related now is it ? the subscription policy for an email list should be a matter for it's owner not for some third party to decide.

Re:MAPS settled

[Rick the Red]

As a victim of MAPS, I know quite a bit about it. I'm not a spammer, I just noticed one day that my brother wasn't getting any of my email. Turns out his ISP was using MAPS's "service" and my ISP got on MAPS's shit list. When I contacted MAPS about it to find out what happened and how to fix it, the bottom line was this: MAPS lied to me about what they did and how it worked. They left me with one choice: find a new ISP. I refused; my brother found a new ISP, one that would allow him to receive my mail. My ISP does not use MAPS and guess what? I am not flooded with spam. Not one bit. You do not need MAPS to avoid spam.

P.S. I did not get "flamebaited," I got modded down. Go ahead, mod this down, too. I'm not a karma whore.

Dynamic DNS Services get blackholed too!

[mtgstuber]

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of SPAM, but given that MAPS and services like it, automatically blackhole email from dynamically served DNS entries, I am quite happy to see them sued, sued into oblivion even. MAPS decreases freedom on the net. I have a DSL connection through a local carrier who shall remain nameless. I run a web server on my connection, largely for family and friends. If I get a business connection where I can get a properly registered DNS entry, I have to pay twice as much for half the bandwidth. So I use dynamic DNS services. Thanks to MAPS its about impossible for me to send email directly from my server. Instead I am forced to use the email account of my service provider. (Ironically, I can send email from SPAM ridden web mail services any time I want.) I resent MAPS's heavy handed self righteous policing of the net, even more than I resent the bandwidth wasting spammers. I would rather delete some extra #$%^ and have freedom, than have somebody tell me what I can and can't do.

Re:Dynamic DNS Services get blackholed too!

[strredwolf]

MAPS is deliberately slow on the nominations, and rightfully so. However, some others are quick on the draw because of a clear and present danger.

Besides, It's costing all of us to handle the spam. Dynamic DNS? Read: Dialup, someone's blocking on the DUL (and rightfully so). Smarthost instead.

Re:Dynamic DNS Services get blackholed too!

[wayne]

MAPS decreases freedom on the net. [ ...] Thanks to MAPS its about impossible for me to send email directly from my server. Instead I am forced to use the email account of my service provider.

No, MAPS is not decreasing freedom on the net. Your right to throw a punch ends where my nose begins. You still have the ablility to attempt an SMTP connection to anywhere you want, and people who run SMTP servers, such as myself, still have the right to ignore you. You have no "right" to force people to accept your email, I have every right to use my property as I see fit. MAPS has every right to say what they want, as long as it is not libelous or desturbing the piece or breaking some other serious law. You and I are free to choose to listen to them or not.

Really, you aren't even seriously hampered by MAPS . You can still send email, all you have to do is use a machine with a fixed IP address and hasn't been involved in a lot of SPAM.

What you are doing is missplacing your anger. You should be mad at your ISP for its silly restrictions and costs of providing you with a fixed IP address. You should not be mad at MAPS, nor the people who choose to use MAPS.

Re:Dynamic DNS Services get blackholed too!

[supine]

It is likely that you have not been blackholed by MAPS's RBL but by MAPS's DUL. The distinction is important.

The RBL is for servers known to be relaying or originating spam and is generated by testing of the server in question.

The DUL is for IP ranges that ISPs submit as "dial-up". This encourages their dynamic IP customers to utilise their SMTP server.

For a better explanation of the difference compare these two descriptions RBL and DUL.

marty

Re:Dynamic DNS Services get blackholed too!

[jjo]

MAPS is not saying that you are, or have ever been, a spammer. It's merely saying that you belong to a class of users that tends to generate a lot of spam when making direct SMTP connections. This class of users almost always has the ability to send email indirectly via its ISP's servers, so blocking direct connections will seldom be a problem.

Furthermore, MAPS is not a tyrant. Tyrants use force, or the threat of force, to enforce their edicts. MAPS uses nothing but persuasion.

Re:Dynamic DNS Services get blackholed too!

[kindbud]

Smarthost instead.

Oh yeah, great idea. Instead of delivering mail instantly via my own fully-capable MTA, throw all my email into the ISP's queue, where it can sit for hours before being processed. Yeah, right.

Re:Dynamic DNS Services get blackholed too!

[crucini]

...given that MAPS and services like it, automatically blackhole email from dynamically served DNS entries...

I think you are confusing two different issues. Many sites reject mail from IP's that don't have reverse DNS, or which don't resolve to the domain they're claiming to be from. This has nothing to do with MAPS. There is also the possibility that your IP range is on the Dial-up User List (DUL). Pac Bell, in particular, tends to place networks on this list even if they're not dialup. I suggest you query the RBL to find out.

Re:Dynamic DNS Services get blackholed too!

[crucini]

I definitely agree with you that the war on spam is making the net more unfriendly, and imposing a bigger cost on technical individuals than on corporations. The situation you describe is unpleasant, and I understand why you may not want to relay through your ISP's mailserver. But here's why your anger may still be misplaced: MAPS is merely acting as a proxy for many mail admins who do not want to accept mail from dialup and similar addresses. Unfortunately, for most people who make decisions about mail handling, your IP address represents more risk than reward.

Re:Double opt-in? What the hell?

[ClarkEvans]

If I sign up for a mailing list, I should NOT have a bunch of nannys insisting that companies waste my time with another verification step.

Thus, "double-opt-in" is really just "single-opt-in". They've spun the words to mean something that they don't.

These are the only steps which prevent spammers from mass-subscribing you to a mailing list that you don't want to be a part of. Think of it this way. I have a product. I pay a marketing firm $1.00 for every person whom the marketing firm gets on the mailing list. They can do this *legitamately* and actually convince people to sign themselves up... or ... more likely, they can just add 1000's of known e-mails to the sign-up list.

Free speech?

[Hanzie]

How in hell can posting a list of spammers be illegal when posting a list of abortion doctors you want murdered be protected speech? Families of future victims are listed by name too. And addresses.

The crossed off names are people who have been murdered since the list went up. Greyed out means they were only wounded.

Re:Free speech?

[dmarcov]

Because "spam" is technically commerce. The standard of protection for commerical speech is much lower than that for political speech.

Citations you might find helpful are Bigelow v. Virginia (1975) and the earlier Valentine v. Chrestonson (1942).

Posting a list of "spammers" is an inducement against commerce -- the reason for posting the information is to reduce commerical traffic, etc.

Re:Free speech?

[VB]

Whoever hosts that site is a terrorist.

[OT, but hit the link first...]

Re:Free speech?

[Dwonis]

Spam is not commerce. It's theft of services. My services, and the services of my ISP.

Re:Free speech?

[ryanwright]

Holy shit, this "christian" website is disgusting.

Just to clarify, this is not a "christian" web site. Christians don't pull this kind of shit. Don't let people like this allow you to believe the word "Christian" is synonymous with "Stupid evil fucks." It's not. Being a Christian is much more than just proclaiming, "I'm a Christian." You have to walk the walk.

Re:Free speech?

[MikeBabcock]

Lets make it clear that there are a lot of different people in the world with a lot of different basic beliefs and tenets that all call themselves christians.

I am one of those, for those who didn't already know (feel free to read my comments history before slamming me, you won't find much interesting, but hey ...)

Some christians have historically believed that killing people 'on God's behalf' is a valid exercise. The Bible itself makes it very clear that whatever it is that God considers worthy of death, he'll do the deed himself ("Vengence is mine, sayeth the Lord"). Anyone acting for him in this area is misled (and misread).

The people who killed thousands in NYC in the name of Allah claimed to be Muslims.

The KKK claim to be Christians.

Hitler claimed to be a Christian ...

simple solution..

[Lumpy]

A non US company to start making a blackhole list.

If you were in a country that wasnt under direct US control you could basically have the entire staff moon a camera and respont to expierian's lawyers with the photo.

anyone in the former USSR care to start a global business?

Re:simple solution..

[MikeBabcock]

Try some of the open relay lists:

dev.null.dk
relays.ordb.or
orbs.dorkslayers.com
inputs.orbz.org
outputs.orbz.org

etc.

Re:Experian needs to be fought, not just for e-mai

[Lumpy]

All credit reporting companies are corrupt. at a last report I read was that the credit reporting agencies accuracy was 48% and there was a 63% chance that your credit report had 2 or more errors and a 48% chance of serious errors.

What moron at a bank would trust a data source as reliable as a pathological liar? yet it's done every day.

Add to this thet they love spamming and you see the credibility and quality of companies like experian. (Oh and the fact that anyone with about $500.00 can have their credit report legally wiped (for the most part) really adds to the trustworthyness.)

Article Summary.

[catsidhe]

From the article:

Experian enables organizations to find the best prospects and make fast, informed decisions to improve and personalize relationships with their customers. It does this by combining
sophisticated and intelligent decision-making software and systems with some of the world's most comprehensive databases of information on consumers, businesses, motor vehicles
and property...

Translation:

• Experian knows who you are.
  
• Experian knows where you are.
  
• Experian knows what you buy.
  
• Experian will sell this information to anyone who wants it.
  
• Experian wants you to be bombarded^H^H^H^H^H^H exposed to those advertisements which will be most suitable - or failing that, all of them.
  

and from the rest of the article:

• Anyone who thinks they have a right to protect themselves from our 'services' is gravely mistaken.
• Anyone who thinks they have a right to provide protection from our 'services' is gravely mistaken, and will be sued.
  
• Resistance is futile.
  

As far as I read this, it seems that Experian is saying that it is illegal to even provide the option of opting out.

Remember...

[SiMac]

Some times blackholing can indeed be inappropriate. Above.net (which may be owned by MAPS, I don't remember and don't quote me on that) blackholed sites like macromedia.com and ORBS.

Re:Remember...

[MikeBabcock]

BGP4 blackholing (which MAPS half-condones) is stupid when its based on a spam list. Having a list for known abusive networks would be great, that is, they send large numbers of 'abusive' packets that aren't application or protocol specific. In that case, BGP4 blackhole them ... but if they just send spam, block their E-mail servers from sending you mail, don't block your users from downloading their software.

Re:Distributed MAPS

[Rick the Red]

How about decentralized P2P email, so I can email my brother directly without MAPS blocking me because they claim another of my ISP's customers sent some spam once upon a time.

Re:Double opt-in? What the hell?

[Jay Carlson]

That's fine if you're the one who actually signed up. Me, nop@nop.com, and my friend ben@ben.com, get truly fascinating spam by way of people who are enticed to give some email address in return for something; somewhat believably, people will use fake email addresses under duress.

In addition to all the random female-depicting porn you're familiar with, I get aluminum market newsletters, British SMS-music-info-service announcements, and some very tasteful Swedish news mailings. Oh, and for a while nop@nop.com was listed as the contact address for a gay personals service ad in Portugal. The letters I got were very sweet, but my wife still thought it was funny...

My favorite is when people buy unlock codes for commercial software, giving my email address. I've got a whole folder full of registration codes that I didn't pay for and will never use....

Oh right, back to opt-in. So here's what's going on.

• When spammers say "opt-in" they mean that at least somebody typed an email address into a web page somewhere.
• When spammers say "double opt-in" they mean the horrible, onerous, business-destroying requirement to confirm that the person receiving mail at an email address wants to receive their mail. Anti-spammers prefer to call this "verified opt-in", and I like that term better, but it doesn't matter what you call it.

So when somebody types nop@nop.com into the signup for Goatmail (intentionally goating me or not), a verified opt-in system sends nop@nop.com a message saying "hi! hit reply to this message to confirm and enter the wonderful world of goats!" With non-opt-in systems, I'm in Goatland without any further delay. Sort of like when my "friends" sent all the "I'm interested!" postal reply cards to the Navy recruiters AND the dental post-doc programs with my address on them. Took years to get rid of them.

But I digress again. Here's the summary:

• Unverified opt-in means someone wishes for an email address to receive spam.
• Verified opt-in means the recipient of mail sent to an address wants spam.

That clear things up?

Re:Hmmm

[Rick the Red]

"Troll bastards" -- so when I'm in jail, you'll be in the next cell? That's cruel and unusual punishment! I'll sue the warden! I refuse to serve my time in the company of Anonymous Cowards! (oh, then I guess I'd better leave /.)

Re:Hmmm

[Rick the Red]

Geeze, AC, don't you think you've posted enough? Maybe I'm a fuckwit, but I'm sticking my karma out there for all to mod down, unlike some who argue against me. I respect your opinion, and it doesn't bother me that you don't respect mine. It doesn't bother me that you call me names and make up lies about me. What bothers me is that you hide to save your 3 or 4 points. Coward indeed.

Re:Double opt-in? What the hell?

[oldperson]

Double opt-in is marketing speak from the DMA (that's Direct Marketing Association, a group which includes a number of mainstream corporations considering spam.)

The term entered debate when Congress invited representatives of the DMA and MAPS to address a panel. It's been relentlessly pushed by the PR flacks and looks like it might be taking hold in the technical world as cybersquatting did. (Another spin term foisted into use by relentless marketing from the IP lobby.)

The spinless and more acurate term is "opt in with confirmation." It doesn't include the false and spin-driven connotation that people have to sign up twice and it accurately describes what MAPS considers ideal.

The DMA doesn't like "opt in with confirmation" because it polls much more favorably than "double opt-in" and they'd rather people used terms that favored their side of the debate.

Re:do i understand this correctly?

[SnatMandu]

It's no crime. Maybe MAPS's strategy is bad, as if my ISP allows spammers to operate, those with MAPS-using ISPs won't get my mail.

If I make a list of spammers (according to my own definition) and post it on the web, and you decide to hunt them down and kill them, does that make me an accessory to murder? I hope not.

I should still be OK if I post the list and say "somebody oughta kill these f&ckers". Jim Bell's case might have proved me wrong on this one, I forget the details

What makes me more anoyed at spamers

[AnotherBrian]

I do agree that EVERY mailing list MUST be double opt-in. To me this sounds like common sense, but I'm not a $grabbing bastard that will do any thing for an extra buck. The thing that really pisses me off is the fact that the companies can sell my address to hundreds of others without my consent. This is what I think happens all the time:

1. Sone jerk signs me up for spam from company A
2. I get spam from A with a 'remove' link in it
3. I click 'remove' and no more crap from company A
4. Company A sells my address to company B C D E F... and they probably earn more money from this than they would have earned from my buying something from THEM
5. I now get 5x the spam F---!
6. GOTO 2

I think this reselling of names can be worse than no double opt-in. I know the big companies won't allow this (by buying politicians and lobbyists) on the grounds that thair ill-gotten lists are thair property and can do with it what they wish. I know it would be hard to keep a list of the companies that do this, but I think MAPS should consider upgrading thair service to include several lists that offer variable amounts of protection to ISP admins. Like one list with KNOWN spamers, one with ALLEGED smamers, one with PROVED non-spamers, and one that would be managed by users, kind of like how moderation and meta-moderation works here on /.

Re:do i understand this correctly?

[SnatMandu]

Who the hell granted them this authority over the Internet? Nobody, that's who.

All the ISPs that subscribe gave them authority, that's who. That's not nobody.

Re:MAPS settled

[JatTDB]

Oh, you vigilantes are so cute when you're mad.

At any point that I am walking down a public street, a salesman could approach me and launch right into a sales pitch. I can dodge around him, turn, say no, something like that...but it's still going to change my initial plan of walking uninhibited down the street.

Yes, spam sucks...but look at the examples you gave of how to ensure a spam-filled mailbox...all of those are like walking down the biggest public street in the world.

But more important than a reason people shouldn't get so incredibly pissed off over spam...the whole concept of black hole lists is just wrong. It's a "kill em all and let god sort em out!" solution. Why should the other users of an ISP with a handful (or even just one) bad user all be punished? They did nothing wrong. In most cases, there's no way they would know such a situation was possible. Use methods that don't punish the innocent, and you'll get a lot more support with stuff like this.

Middle ground.

[james_moriarty]

Has anyone stopped to read MAPS' press release? Here's an clip:

"Experian has committed to requiring their clients to provide them with lists which contain only those email addresses for which they have obtained the addressee's permission to send them email."

It appears that MAPS hasn't comprimised its values, it's just made them a little more reasonable. So what's the big deal?

Holy propaganda batman!
-Geoff

Re:Middle ground.

[KjetilK]

That this bit is rubbish. If they do not use confirm subscriptions, they haven't gotten permission. It is as simple as that.

Re:what about changing negative to positive?

[sigwinch]

What if there is the REVERSE, and instead of giving a Black Hole list, they give a Star list. ... Being there something of 100 million domains registered (please correct this), and using a hash of it ti store a valid domain, it would take 400MB, adding some cpu nice sorting stuff say it takes 1GB.

Spam filtering is usually done by IP address. Using one bit per IP address would take only 512MB of storage. (For IPv4 at least. IPv6 would be harder.)

If the whitelist became popular enough, you could get people to pay for having their IPs listed. Say $1.00 for each IP address, perhaps with discounts for quantity. The fee would be dirt cheap compared to the cost of operating an email server, so I don't think anyone could complain. And since it's a real transaction, you can have an extremely strong contract that they can't sue you about. Literally can't sue: you could make their sole recourse be arbitration with an arbitrator and in a jurisdiction of your choice.

Re:MAPS settled

[CharlieG]

Heck, I've always used my real email here, and on the usenet and my web page too. Yes the SPAM is annoying. I wish there was a Windows Client Side software that would tap into the RBL/ORBS etc

As it is, I deal with the 20 or so pieces of spam I get every day with the delete key

Notice something about the press release?

[ckd]

No contact email address is given. Hmm. Maybe because they don't want to get signed up for all those single opt-in lists?

Re: SPAM

[Kasreyn]

My ISP does not use MAPS and guess what? I am not flooded with spam. Not one bit. You do not need MAPS to avoid spam.

Oh really? I double-dog-dare you to go online, in chatrooms, read certain webpages and enter certain data, and have your email address unobscured on major websites like /. 4 months later, if you're not drowning in spam, then I'll apologize.

Put another way, there are three explanations for your not getting spam without MAPS: Maybe they're just not spamming you. Maybe your ISP is using a non-MAPS blackhole list (gasb! they exist). Or MAYBE the spammers just ain't NOTICED you yet, monkey-boy. New ISP means new email address, duhh.

-Kasreyn

Re:MAPS settled

[djmurdoch]

When I contacted MAPS about it to find out what happened and how to fix it, the bottom line was this: MAPS lied to me about what they did and how it worked.


My experience with them is that they're extremely honest, that they bend over backwards to avoid listing someone, and they'll remove you from their list at the first sign that you've done something to fix the problem. However, they're overworked, and occasionally make mistakes.

Generally innocent web sites only get blackholed when they're on the same netblock as a bunch of spammers. The idea is that blackholing each of the spammers' addresses is having no effect, so the host must be profiting from the spam: and MAPS blackholes the entire block to try to get the host to act more responsibly. If you happen to be innocent and in the same block, then you're obviously not going to be too happy about it, but you shouldn't have been dealing with sleazebag spam supporters.

I'd like to hear the details of what went wrong in your case. What did they tell you that was a lie?

Re:MAPS settled

[JatTDB]

Just because you're not taking the "kill em all" to the most extreme possible level does not make it any less wrong when used on a smaller scale. There is no way you can ever justify to me that it is right to punish completely innocent people for another's actions. Act against spammers...don't act against people who did nothing to you.

As to the choice issue...the reason I tend to speak out on the anti-spam blackhole stuff is not because of the effects on the technologically capable. What about those people who don't know enough to even ask their ISP if they use this sort of thing? The only way they'll ever hear about this sort of thing is when it negatively affects them. Great things that does for the image of the blackholes.

Interference with contract?

[Todd Knarr]

One thought. Now that MAPS is charging for access to their service, can someone paying for their services consider there to be a contract between MAPS and them wherein MAPS agrees to provide a list of IP addresses that meet it's definition of 'spammer'? If so, and Company A goes to court and prevents MAPS from listing their IP addresses even though they meet MAPS' definition, can RBL subscribers sue Company A for damages due to Company A's interference in MAPS' performance of it's duties under it's contract with them?

Honestly

[macdaddy]

I can't see how this can be done. The way I see it, it's a violation of freedom of speech. If I say that I have a reason to not want to accept mail from spammer.com and I publicly state that, then that's my constitutional right. Really that's all they are doing. They are publicly saying that they won't accept mail from spammer.com or his netblock and they're making that known publicly. The method in which they let the public gain access to their list of people that thet won't accept email from is by DNS. If another said person of the public happens to decide that they trust my opinion on who I will not accept mail from and use my list of domains and netblocks as their own, then they are excercising their freedom to express themselves. I'm not forcing them to do it. They trust my opinion and that's that. To me it's really that simple. It's nothing more than a car magazine rating a given year's new models and expressing their opinions. If a writer for Car Magazine says that he personally doesn't like car A because it doesn't come in pink and I as a consumer have always based my purchasing decisions off of what that writer believes, then is he at fault just like MAPS? No, the writer isn't. He expressed his opinion and I decided to trust his opinion. If a buddy of mine tells me that he received spam from newspammer.com and I either a) trust what he told me or b) he proves to me that they spammed him (with the message and headers) than there's no reason why I can't trust his opinion and add newspammer.com to my list as well. If I decide to add a way for a spammer to have his domain removed from my personal list then there isn't any reason why I can't. If I say they first have to wear a baby blue tutu and cowboy boots and run through the streets of Dallas before I'll remove them, that's well within my right. After all the list is mine, not there's. I'm entitled to my opinion. Does anyone else see it as simply put as I do? To me it's just that simple.

I'll tell you one more thing that's very simple. Experian has earned a very simple and very permanent REJECT entry in my Sendmail access lists. Simple.

Re:Double opt-in? What the hell?

[macdaddy]

Put it this way: do you think Experian should be able to publish anything they want about a person regardless of accuracy?

I don't want to waste my energy retyping what I put into a previous post so I'm going to provide the link to it so you can go read it. In short I believe MAPS is well within their right to publish their opinion. It is well within my right to take their opinion for gospel. We are all entitled to our opinion.

DNS Blacklists aren't nearly abusive as my personal Sendmail access lists. Once a domains goes on it, there's no way off. I briefly investigate the spam. If an actual domain is associated with it, then that domain just earned a permanent REJECT entry. Simple really.

Sysadmins don't forgive. Sysadmins don't forget.

[KMSelf]

Rick Moen has a standard message for those who would sue MAPS. You see, MAPS actually wins by losing.

Time to update those DNS records and MTA rulesets, people.

My own last message to Experian:

Subject: Experian settles with MAPS -- Welcome to the Blackhole of Death

You've been added manually.

By me.

By 100,000 other sysadmins.

Or is it only 10,000?

Or is it 1,000,000?

Who knows?

But you're in named.conf.

You're in Sendmail, Exim, Qmail, Postfix, and Exchange reject rulesets.

And you'll never get out.

Ever.

Because.

You sued MAPS.

You can't root us out.

You can't make up, fly straight, and appeal your listing.

You lost by winning.

Welcome to the Black Hole of Death.

Remember: no one can hear you.

And no one cares.

MAPS deserves our full support!

[Per Abrahamsen]

They don't arbitrarily blackhole any companies.

They do keep a list of servers whose administrators that does not want to cooperate in the fight against spam for whatever reason.

It is up to the mail server administrators to decide whether they want to accept mail from those servers. That is a perfectly fair and honorable thing to do.

Why excatly do you think I should be denied the choice to refuse to accept mail from people who will not help fight the one thing that have made mail nearly useless to me?

And why exactly do you think that giving me that choise is as morally questionable as trying to force me to accept and pay for junk I don't want?

Re:MAPS deserves our full support!

[crucini]

It is assenine to expect every individual who runs a mailing list to setup their list for double opt-in.

First of all, "double opt-in" is spammer jargon for opt-in. What spammers call "single opt-in" is not opt-in at all, but merely arbitrary addtion of a mail address to a list without permission of the address's owner. By using this phrase, you paint yourself as an ally or dupe of spammers.

System administrators are responsible for keeping their machines and domains running smoothly. That includes blackholing IP ranges that cause massive harm. MAPS is just a way for a bunch of sysadmins to pool their knowledge.

The past teaches us that change in complex systems (ergo: email / mailing lists / spamming practices) requires consolidated standards bodies and a unified lobbying effort for change.

Actually, MAPS is winning. SPAM has a very bad name on the internet and large corporations shun it. Spammers are driven to more extreme and more criminal tactics, which show their stripes more clearly. Spamming operations frequently involve stolen credit card numbers. If we ever transition to secure credit cards, I guess spammers will break into buildings at night to use their connectivity. Or else they might finally give up.

Re:MAPS deserves our full support!

[WNight]

MAPS doesn't properly disclose why companies got on the list. They blackhole Spamford Wallace right along with some company that simply denies their right to scan the mail servers.

As such, I think they do cross the line to libel (or slander) by implying that any company on their list is spamming or harbouring spam. Many admins just don't like their heavy-handed ways, yet are blackmailed into cooperating.
If MAPS was a more open process, and democratic, where all communications with the offending admins were posted and people got to vote to block them, I'd support it more. As is, with it a black-box system where you simply have to trust MAPS... No.

Re:MAPS deserves our full support!

[crucini]

The term "double opt-in" was coined by the Direct Marketing Association as an alternative to "opt-in" because it has the connotation of being overly burdensome. As for the effectiveness of MAPS, check out this ISP status page which I found at random. Here's what I gleaned from a quick look at their graphs:

1. The majority of their inbound mail is spam.
   
2. The MAPS RSS (relay spam stopper) accounts for the vast majority of spam stopped.
   
3. The MAPS RBL accounts for the smallest amount of spam stopped.
   

Some thoughts on relating this data to your post: The RSS acts directly, by blocking spam from hopelessly open relays. The RBL acts indirectly by placing pressure on the owner of a netblock. RBL nominations can be based on spam support as well as spam origination. Therefore, the fact that the RBL directly stops very little spam does not necessarily mean it's ineffective. The RBL is a deterrent to harboring spam. Maybe this is what you mean when you say "the only war they are winning is political."

The RBL has made it difficult to brazenly maintain a spam support website.

Re:How do you wipe your credit report for $500???

[Lumpy]

A local lender was offering this service, It is a national company that files request for removal on every item on your credit report Expierian cannot reposond with a yes or no within the alotted 30 days so therefore they haveto remove the mark on the credit report, at the same time this company submits positive credit reporting under one of the hundred DBA's the company holds.

It's leagal, and it takes advantage of expierian's inefficency along with the built in inefficency of the other 2 credit reporters.

BTW: your credit report can vary wildly between all 3 reporting agencies. someone with bad credit on one can get a loan by shopping with some social engineering to find a lender that uses a different reporting agency.

I had a friend that had horrible credit get his cleaned to almost pristine within 6 months. In 12 months he was getting offers for platinum cards because of the guarenteed positive reporting from the companies he hired.

Lawyer: not quite

[hawk]

I am a lawyer, but htis is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdcition.

The issuance of a TRO should not be taken as meaning *anything*. TRO's are issued as an emergency measure to maintain the status quo, and are issued without hearing on the requestof one party. They don't have any finding on the issues; they are just meant to prevent permanent damage pending a hearing on a temporary injunction (which is still not a full ruling on the merits) pending the final outcome of litigation.

hawk, esq.

Re:Lawyer: not quite

[Trepidity]

I wasn't aware of the difference between a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction (I'm guessing what I said applies more to a preliminary injunction). Thanks for clearing it up.

Re:Lawyer: not quite

[hawk]

gladly. :)

also, even the preliminary injunction has a rathyer relaxed standard of proof. A "reasonable likelihood" of prevailing on the merits must be shown--but the facts may turn out otherwise (and the interpretation of the law may change). Recall that an appeals court overturned the injunction agains windows 95, claiming this standard hadn't been met--only to have the DoJ wipe up the courtroom with microsoft at trial.

hawk, esq.

MAPS needs to be more open

[fizbin]

The main issue I have with MAPS is that they make no distinction between companies/sites that produce software used for mass-emailing (which could be spamming, but could also be used to send out messages to an opt-in list), companies/sites that sell lists of email addresses, and actual SPAM sources. Instead, they use a broad brush and declare "These are all spammers". If they offered different classifications (and it wouldn't be hard - different IP addresses for different categories of offense), and allowed individual server administrators to choose how large a brush they wanted to use against spam, then I'd have less of a problem with them tracking also companies that produce bulk email software, since those companies would be blocked only by the system administrators that explicitly wished those sources to be blocked.

The whole MAPS vs ORBS thing has also made me conclude that both sides in that debate are not worthy of my support.

Re:I think it's great that Experian won

[sik puppy]

If you don't think MAPS is the solution, don't use it.

Don't deprive others of their right to use or not use such a list.

It is voluntary. I can guarantee that Experian will have a permanent home in my blacklist. If they ever spam me, I'll press harassment charges.

quantitative measurement

[sik puppy]

How about measuring the effect of this?

Tracert or some other time measurement, and establish a baseline. Over the next week or so see what kind of increase there is. (This kind of networking problem is not my strong spot, so I hope someone can follow up on this)

Thanks

Re:MAPS settled

[Rick the Red]

First you said:

Either post your non-spamproofed email address in a message here on Slashdot or shut the fuck up.

Having a public email address is an absolute necessity for those of us who actually want to meet new people on the Internet. As opposed to those sacks of shit that only want to have a secret little communications club.

Followed by:

P.S. You'll notice I no longer list an email address for this account. The resulting spam was, and still is, overwhelming.

OK, so following your own instructions, you will now "shut the fuck up" like the "sack of shit" that you are, right? Because your admitted refusal to post your real email address here puts you in the same boat with me, buddy.

"Either walk the walk or get the hell off my Internet."

Re:MAPS settled

[Rick the Red]

I don't have the details (specific IP addresses) at hand, but they're on file if needed. MAPS claimed they did not filter by domain name, just specific IP addresses. As several pro-MAPS people have explained here in /., this is a lie. They do not filter specific IP addresses, they filter whole blocks. MAPS sent me the IP address they claim was used by a spammer. Guess what? My blocked IP addresses were not even in the same subnet. They were not filtering specific IP addresses, or even whole blocks of addresses; they filtered my ISP's domain name. That's the lie.

Re:MAPS settled

[Rick the Red]

If your ISP is on the MAPS list, then they have an active spammer as one of their other customers

Wrong. If my ISP is on the MAPS list, it's because MAPS claims they have an active spammer as one of their customers. MAPS does not offer proof of the spamming, they want proof of a negative -- that there is no spamming. How can an ISP prove that? Apparantly, my ISP could not provide convincing proof to MAPS. My ISP told me that the account in question was no longer active, but I only have their word on that, just as we only have MAPS's word that this account was used to spam once upon a time. Who should I believe? My ISP, who has been quite open and honest with me, or MAPS, who would not even talk to me at first (have you tried actually reaching a human being there?). I know you all believe MAPS, and I understand why. Please understand why I don't believe them.

What we need...

[sik puppy]

Is a nuremburg files for spammers. I bet that would be a popular site.

Too bad the actual killing part is illegal.

"The only reason some people are alive is because its illegal to kill them."

(Heinlein? - sounds like a Lazarus Long witicism)

Re:I see this as a victory for business.

[ryanwright]

However, if a company wants to use single opt-in, that's their right. If the company maintains subscription lists, IP addresses and/or message headers of the people that subscribed (as we do), to prove WHO subscribed an e-mail address, that should be enough.

And if I and 100,000 other sysadmins want to blackhole your ass into oblivion, that's our right as well. As for suing Spamcop: Spamcop doesn't accuse you; users do. You DO know that actual people are submitting the spam to Spamcop, don't you? Or did you think they just have a script running that harasses people at random?

Re:I think it's great that Experian won

[ryanwright]

Yes, I know that sysadmins choose to use MAPS, but all their users don't. The collateral damage is substantial.

If you don't like the policies of your ISP, complain to them, or find a new one. Or setup your own server, get a dedicated IP and don't enable MAPS. Or get a free email address from Hotmail, Lord knows they don't care about blocking spam. You have plenty of options here; quit bitching and exercise them.

Re:Sysadmins don't forgive. Sysadmins don't forget

[MikeBabcock]

Anyone published a list of their IPs on Slashdot yet?

The other side speaks...

[Stephen Samuel]

There are always two sides to a PR war. I was wondering why the MAPS URL wasn't in the original article...

Re:Experian needs to be fought, not just for e-mai

[sik puppy]

Time for revenge.

Write to them and demand that they stop selling your credit info. (If you do this for all 3 credit bureaus, your credit card offer snail spam will disappear within 3 months. I only get them from my mortgage company occasionaly)

I don't know if you can demand that they delete all info from their database on you or not. What happens if everyone here tells them:

"You are hereby expressly prohibited from maintaining/dispensing any information about me to anyone for any purpose. If you violate this demand, you agree to pay the sum of $1000.00 US per incident. This agreement is not negotiable."

I don't know if you can force them to delete you from the database, but you can force them to stop selling your name and info.

Lets find out...

This doesn't click

[kindbud]

From MAPS' statememt about the asettlement:

Mitchell continued "By reaching this settlement both sides avoid the very real risks associated with going to trial. Furthermore, neither side can take any action against the other without the permission of the Court, and there are substantial penalties provided for a breach of the agreement. And, of course, we are still free to choose to accept or reject email from them on our own personal networks."

They used to say they wanted to get sued, so they could establish precedent that MAPS activities are legal. But they keep settling. What gives? This is not how to establish precedent.

Re:Double opt-in? What the hell?

[Todd Knarr]

You don't get it. Why should that list use double opt-in? They're a list being run by someone like Experian who says "You did opt in. See, here's the request from you to be added.". You didn't send that request, but that's beside the point for them, they've got the request.

So the malicious person who decided to get you's happy, you're getting spammed. The list operator's happy, he's got a new target free and clear. The only one who suffers is you, as legitimate e-mail to you goes into the bit bucket because the lists have filled up your mailbox with mail you didn't ask to get.

Re:MAPS settled

[sigwinch]

OK, so following your own instructions, you will now "shut the fuck up" like the "sack of shit" that you are, right?

That's all you have to say? You need to work on your flaming skills. ;-)

Because your admitted refusal to post your real email address here puts you in the same boat with me, buddy.

It does not. I acknowledge that there is a spam problem, I take measures not to increase my exposure to that problem, and I support strong countermeasures a la MAPS. You claim that there is no problem and reject countermeasures, yet take action to avoid unwanted mail, and that is hypocrisy.

I think you fail to appreciate the fact that, were it not for the tireless work of the anti-spammers, the Internet would be saturated with spam. I mean that literally. Even if your "secret" email account didn't get any spam, you'd get no mail at all if projects like MAPS didn't exist. The spammers are relentless and oblivious to the amount of destruction they cause. History has proven that they will use all bandwidth that is made available to them.

Your email account is only useful because thousands of server administrators do hours of thankless work on your behalf. It's not always pleasant, and there is sometimes collateral damage, but the scorched earth approach is the only thing keeping the Internet usable.

Actually....

[CharlieG]

I get the whole domain forwared to except 2 addresses (My Parents), so I do get them. It's still only 20 a day or so

Re:I see this as a victory for business.

[ryanwright]

What if I were to sign up for a newsletter, and then later send it in to SpamCop? Are you telling me that the SpamCop script has some type of intelligent filter to know whether or not my complaint is legitimate or that I did/did-not sign up?

Of course not. The software must assume the user is reporting spam. You can't expect it to be able to tell whether or not the user is lying. Therefore, the burden of proof lies not on Spamcop, but on the user claiming to have received the spam. Spamcop shouldn't even enter into the equation.

Any business that has a problem with users mistaking actual subscriptions for spam needs to rethink their policies. While it does happen that someone will sign up for a mailing list and then later report it as spam, it's a rare occurance unless something is inherently wrong with the way the list is being run. Mailing lists should have a two step opt-in process, with the second step being a reply emailed from the user. A simple form on a web page with no confirmation from the email address submitted invites trouble. Secondly, removal instructions should be proudly displayed on every piece of email sent to the subscribers, and they should be simple. The easiest way is to provide a URL where users can unsubscribe themselves.

If your company has problems with opt-in users accusing you of spamming them, that problem lies not with Spamcop nor with your users, but rather with your policies and methods used in operating your distribution lists. Take responsibility for this, fix the problem at it's source and the spam reports will go away.

Re:MAPS settled

[Rick the Red]

You claim that there is no problem and reject countermeasures, yet take action to avoid unwanted mail, and that is hypocrisy.

Wrong. I do not claim there is no problem. I do not reject countermeasures. I reject ineffective vigilante countermeasures. I claim that MAPS does not help, at least not as much as they would have us believe. I'm not alone in this claim. I claim that my ISP does not use MAPS and I have no spam problem. That's not because there is no spam problem, it's because I take action to avoid unwanted email. Why is that so awful? Why am I villified for being careful about how I share my email address?

the scorched earth approach is the only thing keeping the Internet usable.

I disagree. That's the bottom line. That's where we disagree. It doesn't make me an ogre. It doesn't make you an ogre. However, if you block my email based solely on my IP address and nothing else, simply because some self-appointed other person decided to list my IP address as evil, then in my opinion you are indeed an ogre.

What everyone on your side of the arguement fails to realize is that IP address alone is not sufficient evidence of spam. Period. I support a legal definition of spam that we can all agree really targets spam; I will never agree to IP address alone as the sole identifier. I offer to work to define spam -- do you? No. You already know spam when you see it: anything on the MAPS list is spam. Period. No question. No appeal. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me. Who died and left the Internet in the care of MAPS?

Once we have that definition we can enact laws to protect us from spam and punish those to send it. Until then, the vigilanties like MAPS are simply lawless tyrant bullies trying to tell everyone else how to live. You obviously like that, but I don't. Especially when they tell me I can't send email to my brother but won't tell me why.

Re:MAPS settled

[Rick the Red]

You raise some good points, but let's start with your really bad one:

I don't have the details (specific IP addresses) at hand, but they're on file if needed.

Uh huh. Put up or shut up.

Sorry, but they are not here, I do not have them at hand. And even if I did, I would not post my IP address -- I'm not stupid. If I ever need to, I will produce the evidence. Need to in the sense of providing evidence to a court to support a denial-of-service lawsuit against MAPS.

And this bears repeating: MAPS never "filtered" anything. MAPS published a list of IP addresses

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know that, OK? I knew that years ago. But my brother's ISP -- the ones actually using the RBL to block my email -- denied any responsibility and referred me to MAPS. If it wasn't for MAPS and the way they and they alone decide who is and is not labled a spammer -- and their lack of any appeal process or any form of mediation outside the courts -- I would not have had problems sending email to my brother.

MAPS has always been very clear that they will eventually list all known addresses for a given company if that company persisted in antisocial behavior.

Two points. Three, really. 1) Yes, I know they don't actually filter by domain name. What they do is find out all the addresses under a domain name and filter them. Same difference. So they don't go through DNS, so what? The effect is the same. 2) MAPS has not "always" been clear about this. They did not make any such claim to me, personally. To me, personally, over the telephone, they claimed only to block individual IP addresses. They denied blocking entire sets of IP addresses, but that is exactly what they did then and do now. They lied to me. 3) MAPS is the sole arbiter of "antisocial behavior"? I don't think so. Not in a free society. That's my primary complaint against MAPS. If they had listed my IP address because someone else in the same subnet was spamming, I would understand that. But even if that's what happened -- even if what they said were true, which it is not -- they did not have any mechanism for me to prove that I was not a spammer and get my IP address taken off the RBL. Their only solution was for me to change ISPs. That's extortion. What's worse, the entity they claimed was spamming was from another state, in another subnet, but they blocked (excuse me, listed) me because I had the same ISP. That's mistaken identity, and that's forgivable too, if they have a process for removing non-spammers from their list. But they have no such process, and have no interest in considering one. That's what makes them vigilanties, and thus vermin to be exterminated.

Re:I think it's great that Experian won

[ryanwright]

And finally, Hotmail does use MAPS if you enable it.

However, Hotmail does not force you to use it, which was my whole point: You have options. Nobody is being forced to use MAPS. Even people stuck with a MAPS subscribing ISP can get a free email account that is not subject to MAPS filtering.

Re:MAPS settled

[Rick the Red]

You keep flinging around terms with reckless disregard for their meaning. Extortion implies that MAPS intended to reap some tangible benefit from you, backed up by a threat of violence.

Sorry if I misled you. Please suggest an alternate word. What I meant was this: MAPS expected me to change ISPs to suit them. The tangible benefit to them is increased legitimacy and an increased sense of power ("we cost someone another subscriber!"). The threat to me was not physical, it was a threat to continue to have my mail blocked. That's extortion to me: Using a threat to change someone else's behavior. What word would you use?

Re:MAPS settled

[crucini]

You appear to be confused.

MAPS claimed they did not filter by domain name...

The MAPS RBL is a system which accepts an IP address and returns a result if the IP is associated with spam. It does not work with domain names at all.

As several pro-MAPS people have explained here in /., this is a lie. They do not filter specific IP addresses, they filter whole blocks.

Netblock != domain. The fact that MAPS blacklists spamming netblocks does not imply that they target domains. Domains exist within the context of name resolution. They have nothing to do with network architecture. It's possible to host a thousand domains at one IP address, or have one domain that includes thousands of IP addresses.

My blocked IP addresses were not even in the same subnet. They were not filtering specific IP addresses, or even whole blocks of addresses; they filtered my ISP's domain name.

The first sentence does not support the second. They probably listed some or all of the netblocks which your ISP controls. The subnet of which you speak was probably contained within one of those netblocks. Your conclusion that they "filtered" your ISP's domain name does not make sense.

That's the lie.

Before slinging insults, you might consider learning a bit more about the internet. It does not work the way you think it does.

Re:I see this as a victory for business.

[crucini]

I don't think that anyone has the right to tell a business how to run things.

Really? Let's just abolish the government then, and let businesses do whatever they want. But wait a minute. Suppose a business B1 wants to null route another business B2 because it's flooding the network with junk. Does anyone have the right to tell B1 how to run things? What if B1 shares the info with B3, B4, and B5, all of whom object to floods of junk? Don't they have the right to blackhole the offender? You can't complain because you don't think that anyone has the right to tell a business how to run things. Your position is self-contradictory.

One service (SpamCop) constantly accuses our company of sending SPAM. We respond with the IP address or the person who subscribed them to our list, date/time stamp, and the URL of the page that states the conditions of the submission/subscription...

Your company is a spam house, pure and simple. Even if the log information you offer is legit, which is open to question, using it would require the cooperation of the ISP that owns that address. It also involves substantial work on the part of the injured party, all to end up at a dialup account that was either stolen or disconnected for abuse eight hours after it was activated.

That's why the pressure will rightfully be placed on your company, because you are the people running a "single opt-in" (which means no opt-in) list. Eventually you will cause enough harm that you will be RBL'd.

Re:I think it's great that Experian won

[crucini]

Experian has paying clients and has the right to send e-mail to people who have indicated interest.

Many spammers have paying clients. Why do you think that this legitimizes their activity? As for a "right to send email," you are talking about making a TCP connection to a box owned by someone else. You do not have an absolute right to connect to someone else's computer against his will. Even if you have "paying clients".

First the people behind MAPS work to build the Internet (with things like BIND and sendmail), then they change their mind and punch it full of holes.

It sure looks strange, when you put it that way. How about this: first they built the infrastructure, then they kept it clear of junk.

Something needs to be done about spam, but MAPS isn't the right solution.

Great. So while you're working on the right solution, please don't be offended that more practical-minded people just don't accept traffic from malicious companies.

Re:MAPS settled

[Rick the Red]

That's extortion to me: Using a threat to change someone else's behavior. What word would you use?

It's called a boycott. It has a long and honorable history, and it is not extortion. Look it up.

Main Entry: extort
Pronunciation: ik-'stort
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Latin extortus, past participle of extorquEre to wrench out, extort, from ex- + torquEre to twist -- more at TORTURE
Date: 1529
: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power

Main Entry: boycott
Pronunciation: 'boi-"kät
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Charles C. Boycott died 1897 English land agent in Ireland who was ostracized for refusing to reduce rents
Date: 1880
: to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions

Sounds to me like extort is the right word. The only boycott involved is my boycott of MAPS; they certainly did not boycott me, they extorted me.

Re:MAPS settled

[Rick the Red]

Enough posting to 3-day-old articles now

I see your point. One last comment. I see your point. I really do. You fail to see mine. Since you refuse to acknowlege that I have a right to a point of view different from yours, I quit as well. I just hope that one day you are burned by MAPS and begin to see how it looks to be on the receiving end of their actions. You claim I was not intimidated. I disagree, and since I'm the one who was affected -- not you -- I fail to see how you can claim I was not intimidated. MAPS caused a real problem for me, and they refused to help me solve it. Their only "solution" was to switch ISPs.

As for my refusal to name names, I fail to see the point. If you must know, I am no longer with that particular ISP because they went out of business. So what? What you fail to recognize is that I am -- we all are -- under the constant threat that MAPS will blacklist our current ISP, with no recourse except to find another. Which means that MAPS becomes the sole arbiter of who you may or may not do business with. I personally resent that. What's worse, they have set themselves up as the sole judge of which ISP is "worthy" of the Internet, but they are not in the business of "blessing" the good ones, only condemning the ones they don't like. In other words, MAPS will not tell me I'm safe if I choose ISP X. I could waste a lot of money on ISPs as MAPS condemns them one by one. I personally dislike the big guys and wish to support local, little guys, but with MAPS out there the only safe ISPs are the ones too big for MAPS to threaten, basically just MSN and AOL. Woo, great choice there! Is this the world you wish to live in, one where everyone is either with MSN or AOL because some punk in California realized that he could throw his weight around on the Internet simply because bits are harder to regulate than atoms?

If I disagree with Consumer Reports I can ignore them. If they claim the Beltchfire 3000 is a death trap I am free to ignore them and buy one anyway. I am not free to ignore MAPS. If MAPS decided the Beltchfire 3000 is a death trap MAPS would prevent me from using one by remote control, and there's nothing I can do about that. But MAPS won't tell me what they consider safe, just that I should buy something else. And they won't tell me not to buy the Belchfire 3000 until after I own one and find it no longer works. That's denial of service, and as far as I'm concerned that should be illegal. You can disagree, and I understand why you do. I just wish you were open minded enough to understand my motives here. But then, experience has taught me that vigilanties have a pretty closed minded approach to just about everything.

I'd say "see you later" but I honestly hope we never meet again.