Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MAPS and Experian Settle Lawsuit

Posted by michael on from the one-big-happy-family dept.

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."

14 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. Advertising is Pollution by ewhac · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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

    --
    Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
  2. winners or loosers? by Rev.LoveJoy · · Score: 5, Informative
    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

  3. I don't get it! by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:I don't get it! by btempleton · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
  4. MAPS must have been scared by btempleton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
  5. access.db by jmd! · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. For those who are confused: by Nindalf · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  7. Other filter lists... by gavcam · · Score: 5, Informative
    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!

  8. maybe a blacklist would work on a web page by mj6798 · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

  9. Re:MAPS settled by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
  10. Dynamic DNS Services get blackholed too! by mtgstuber · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  11. Free speech? by Hanzie · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    --
    ********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
  12. Re:Double opt-in? What the hell? by Jay+Carlson · · Score: 5, Informative
    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?
  13. Interference with contract? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?