MAPS and Experian Settle Lawsuit

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MAPS and Experian Settle Lawsuit

Posted by michael on Wednesday October 3, 2001 @11:02AM 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."

9 of 313 comments (clear)

Advertising is Pollution by ewhac · 2001-10-03 11:11 · 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
winners or loosers? by Rev.LoveJoy · 2001-10-03 11:12 · 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
I don't get it! by Kaz+Kylheku · 2001-10-03 11:12 · 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 · 2001-10-03 11:17 · 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
MAPS must have been scared by btempleton · 2001-10-03 11:13 · 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
access.db by jmd! · 2001-10-03 11:18 · 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.
Other filter lists... by gavcam · 2001-10-03 11:35 · 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!
Free speech? by Hanzie · 2001-10-03 12:13 · 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.
Re:Double opt-in? What the hell? by Jay+Carlson · 2001-10-03 12:34 · 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?