Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft and the SPAM Game
The Seattle Times reported a while ago that Microsoft is pushing for Washington State Senate Bill 5734 which will overturn most of Washington State's laws that specify monetary penalties for companies who send out spam. This will completely exempt ISPs from current Washington spam laws, which Microsoft just happens to be. It seems that they are jumping the gun a bit. They are having a company named Digital Impact (save that address for you spam filters) send the email for them. Thankfully I live in Seattle so maybe I can collect an easy $500 before Microsoft guts the current law.
Slash-dodo-dot.
Is that a skin cream? Micro-so-soft!
I rejoice that there are owls.
First they invade Userfriendly, now even Slashdot has advertisements for them, now they are going to spam us directly. I wonder if you use that stupid MSN spam filter to filter them out, if it would do it. Maybe it "accidently" lets them through. Hmm...anyone try it?
JoeLinux
Arguing on the internet is like winning the special olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.
This will completely exempt ISPs from current Washington spam laws, which Microsoft just happens to be.
So Microsoft, aka Micrososoft, just happens to be a Washington spam law, or maybe you meant they happen to be an ISP? Nice job.
Come on now. Spam is so old school. It's legacy. The wave has already crested.
Why can't they come up with some new inovative way to plaster ads in front of internet users? These people control the desktop, and 99% of the browser market after all.
At least companies like Gator offered new and different technology to monetize the users.
Microsoft is better than this. I never thought they would have to stoop as low as sending spam. They must really be hurting for new cashflow sources to impress "The Street."
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
Thankfully I live in Seattle so maybe I can collect an easy $500 before Microsoft guts the current law.
I also live in Washington state, and I can tell you from experience: collecting the $500 will not be easy. Here are the ideal conditions for a lawsuit (taken from the Peacefire webpage, which I have been a member of for four years now):
* The defendant is a corporation, and you know the state where they are incorporated. (Usually, the state where they're incorporated is either the state where they're located, or Delaware -- because Delaware makes it easy to incorporate there.) Legally, a company cannot use "Corporation" or "Inc." or "Incorporated" anywhere, unless they really are a corporation -- but that won't tell you where they're incorporated, or even if they're incorporated in the U.S. Unfortunately, with most spam, you can't even find out the name of the company that sent it, much less whether they're a corporation.
* You can easily prove one of the following (one of these conditions must be satisfied to show that the spam violated the law):
* The sender address ("From:") or return address ("Reply-To:") was forged. If you get mail from an address that looks blatantly forged, like "98of292h38h2r@hotmail.com", send a blank message to that address, and keep the error message that comes back to you saying that there is no such address. This can be used to prove, in court, that the spammer violated Washington's anti-spam law by forging the return address. The subject line was "misleading". This is a subjective determination, one that will ultimately be made by the judge. One of the spammers that I'm suing, sent me an advertisement with the subject line "Shareholder request", which I considered blatantly misleading since Peacefire doesn't even have "shareholders". (The gist of the advertisement was, "You will look good in your shareholder's eyes if you use our product.")
You have registered your address with the WAISP (http://registry.waisp.org/) registry -- to sue a spammer under Washington's law, you have to be able to show that there was some way for the spammer to determine that you lived in Washington.
More power to you if you can collect the $500, but it's a tough road ahead.
It's cool to bash Microsoft everywhere.
I am John Doe, loyal employee of Microsoft. I seek the assistance of someone who is genuinely interested in entering into a business relationship with me. As you know, Bill Gates was the ruler of Microsoft before quietly resigning a few years back. Corrupt governments deemed his business illegal, and as a result, his business accumulated assets were frozen.
I therefore seek your assistance in providing a safe and genuine bank account to temporarily store my leader's rightfully owned assets. For your assistance, 0.01% of his assets ($2.76 Million Dollars) will be left in your account as payment.
Note that there is no risk for you or your family, but keep this correspondence private, as this is a matter of great secrecy. As soon as we receive your letter of acceptance/acknowledgement/, I shall give you more on this transaction.
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
Frankly it sounds like a good bill, and just because MS is supporting it doesnt mean you shouldnt.
Do you want the laws to lead down a path where your ISP is financially liable for your actions? Because that road goes to the place where your ISP turns over audited logs of everything you've done to avoid liabilities.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Nice idea, but flawed. Spammers do not normally use real e-mail addresses anyway, and their invalid ones may actually map onto innocent collateral damage victims.
I track known Slashdot scumbags on my foes list!
How many people have actually gotten spam from Microsoft? I get a few newsletters which I can unsubscribe to at any time. I get very infrequent mails (once every month or two) which are generally pretty targeted to my interests, I think most of them have an opt out.
This sounds like the way "spam" should be sent - target, restrained, and with the option to opt out. I don't see a problem.
What experience have other people had?
Read reviews of shopping cart software
Why don't they just obey the law if they want to send spam? Spam isn't illegal in WA, just forging the header or providing a misleading title. If they'd send mail on the up-and-up, there's no problem.
Taken from the WA lawbook, it's illegal when it:
(a) Uses a third party's internet domain name without permission of the third party, or otherwise misrepresents or obscures any information in identifying the point of origin or the transmission path of a commercial electronic mail message; or
(b) Contains false or misleading information in the subject line.
"Why the fuck does m$ need to spam?"
They don't. What they intend to do is interpose themselves between an advertiser and MSN's captive audience. They want to send other peoples' spam. For profit.
Known for its poor software? By whom, the Slashdot community, which is hardly representative of this thing called the real world? Just because some Slashdot geeks don't like Microsoft doesn't mean their software is poor, sorry. In fact, a lot of their software is quite useful -- just because people think everything should be free doesn't make the software bad.
Monopolistic practices happen, all the time, the companies gets reined in by the gov't. But you don't see the rhetoric when people talk about cable companies, phone companies, power companies, etc., only Microsoft. Curious...
You are jumping to conclusions about my post. I'm not pretentious. But think about why you posted your comment in the first place. It bore no insight; it conveyed no useful information. All you did was jump on the Slashdot bandwagon and yell "Microsoft sucks! Look at me I'm one of you!"
evil adrian
You put some poor unsuspecting sap's e-mail address up to get harvested and slammed, when it's quite likely that the addresses were forged...
and I hate to tell you this, but spam.thatgeek.com sounds like an invitation to me...
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
Let's take back the internet. Make ISPs responsible for ANY fraudulent email they transmit or relay. Legally reposnsible as in fines and jail terms. Then allow companies to send out unsolicited email provided the have a reasonable opt-out policy. Primary sellers only, email lists just for the sake of emailing people should be made illegal.
Then I think you have the problem solved. ISPs aren't going to allow just anyone to use their mail servers, esp. companies who go through a foriegn ISP, if the ISP here may be held accountable for anything passing through their systems (and take metaphore that anyway you like). Then only reputable companies w/ a recognized opt-out policy can send email. (Make the FCC or the FCT or some big government commitee decide who is "recognized".)
Big, reputable companies can be dealt with. I'm not scared of them. It's the creeps who hide behind anonymity and pedal trash that I want to get.
(And I know what an open relay is and why some mistaken people feel they have a need to run one. I don't care. I don't care about your frickin email server or your frickin (fake) political causes or frickin what not. You people with open servers are as bad as the spammers themselves.)
Or maybe for a loss. It is Microsoft after all.
Imagine the power they could weild if they put most of the other spammers out of buisness.
The current law can be found here. A report on a successfully prosecuted case can be found here. If one reads either, it's easy to see that the current law only applies to fraudulent headers.
Given that the current law only covers fraudulent headers, I doubt that Microsoft is maliciously trying to destroy the current law.
However, last year the senate introduced bill 6568 which extended the old law to require that commercial e-mail contain ADV: as the first 4 characters of the subject line. That bill passed the senate with flying colors. Unfortunately, it got locked up in committee in the house and died.
House bill 5734 is a watered down version of last year's senate bill 6568.
I don't like Microsoft much. That said, the story at the Seattle Times is riddled with half-truths and inaccuracies. For example, it claims that 5734 completely exempts ISPs. The senate summary of the bill says
So, ISPs aren't liable for transporting SPAM, as they aren't liable for transporting copyrighted material or child porn. They can still be liable for originating, or aiding in the origination, of spam. I think that's a reasonable exemption.I'd be really interested in knowing whether lobbyists that are partially funded by Microsoft also supported senate bill 6568 from last year. If so, this is definitely unjustified Microsoft bashing. However, if their lobbyists locked it up in the house then we can villify them for weakening a good bill.
Too bad the article doesn't comment on that, and I don't have a way to find out.
I used to be a narrator for bad mimes. (wright)
Why would they support a bill, when they complain that 80% of the mail on hotmail is spam. They just encourage it more. If they start spamming, will this stop them from putting butterflys all over NYC? Maybe we could just shoot MS's advertising dept. Then shoot the guy who came up with the idea to support this bill.
Microsoft has enough methods for getting their products time in front of your eyes, through Windows Media Player, and virtually every other bundled app within windows, without deluging you with junkmail, but the fact remains that generation of email marketing materials is far cheaper than any other marketing materials except perhaps newspaper ads. Consumer eye-share is a valuable thing, and ther is no better medium than through that through which consumers expect to recieve valuable and meaningful correspondence thus are more likely to focus their attention on as they review what they've recieved. The fact of the matter is, SPAM works. This is our fault as consumers. I've never bought anything based on SPAM I've recieved and I doubt anyone who frequents /. has either, but obviously many consumers have. Say what you will about Microsoft, but the company is a collection of some of the shrewdest business people out there who'll be damned to hell before they abandon a potential marketing channel. It's just good business.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
I'm assuming you mean that Windows is a ripoff of MacOS? Let's conveniently forget that the GUI was invented by Xerox, not Apple, right?
Let's use that as a starting point. Your turn.
evil adrian
it's the age-old practice of manufacturing a problem while providing the means to get around the problem. i.e., m$ sends out spam and then sells you their software to prevent spam.
And the prequel
Monopolies, no matter who has them, are bad. It doesn't matter who the company is or what they control.
(scroll down a bit in the discussions for the "rhetoric" and if I really cared, I'd look up examples for cable companies and power companies too, but I don't
I wonder if after I report this kind of spam to spamcop their ISP will close their uplink.
Anyway, is particulary dumb from Microsoft to do that kind of mail advertising and thru a so known spammer. I know that I never should attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity, but speaking of Microsoft you never know.
..like an Anonymous Coward post on Slashdot!
I've had m0.net firewalled off from my mail server for months (maybe years) now due to their incessant spewage of spam.
= UTF-8& oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search
/dev/null
just look here
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=m0.net&ie
The fact that M$ would even consider such a slimey bag of spammers is typical of their unethical monopolistic behavior. Maybe its high time we added all of M$ ip blocks to the various rbl's and see how Uncle Billy feels when his corporate emails start hitting
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
Where he is dumping spammers through the trapdoor.
Now he asks, "Are you from Digital Impact? Oh, go on in!"
MAKE MONEY FAST!
Before everybody jumps on the bandwagon to castigate the slashdot editors for poor spelling has anybody considered the following:
That it was not a typo but a secretive heads-up to Microsoft changing both their name and business focus/strategy.
That's right!. In the very near future Microsoft is to be known as MicroSoSoft. The new ad campaign will feature, among other things:
*Fluffy white rabbits and ducklings
*Adorable scamps kicking a MicroSoSoft plush football around a park.
*Picnics by beautiful undulating streams.
*The amazing results of MicroSoSoft fabric softener on both whites and colors.
Now lavish your kudos on krow for his timely covert communique. Dissemination for the people!
Would you be upset if you got an email you werent expecting announcing Red Hat Advanced Server?
They didnt forge emails. There was no deceptive subject header. You've all owned a microsoft product before, so theres a prior customer relationship. Theres an opt-out link for future emails.
Microsoft sent out a bunch of emails to announce that Win 2003 is ready to go.
The best thing a bunch of outrage and pretend shock can do is lock down the 'net with more government controls. That's just the thing to teach bad ole Bill Gates.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I bought one of those MSN Companion puters from Tiger direct a year ago. I signed up for the MSN service (free 6mo) to play with the puter before I nuked the OS. I signed up as "ipaqheat@msn.com". This is not an address that was published, as I have never used it. Within a week of signing up I had a SPAM in the mailbox. The way I see it, Microsoft had to sell my information to a spammer for that to happen. I hold them responsible for it. I've since canceled the account.
Don't jump on digital impact too hard. I work for a MAJOR e-commerce site that contracts with Digital Impact. They are very good at sending out large volumes of e-mail reliably. We use them purely for legitimate, non-spam-type e-mails. Sure with time we could write the code to do it ourselves but they specialize in it. I'm not sure what MS has contracted them to do but as much as I hate to say it, it could be on the up and up. Not all high volume e-mails are spam.
As for overturning spam laws I'm skeptical that it is in the public's best interest but Digital Impact does offer valuable services.
Even as recently as last month, MSIE came in 6 out of 6 in a comparison of web browsers. Opera and Mozilla, among others, have it beat by a long shot in all categories (well, Opera costs, but I get my boss to pay). It's even documented in U.S. Federal Court records that MSIE acheived market share over Netscape by bundling MSIE with new copies of MS-Windows.
Quattro, Lotus 1-2-3 and other spread sheets were faster and more mature. It wasn't until MS-Excel v4 when Microsoft's alternativs started to come up to near the same grade as competitors.
Likewise with small desktop databases. Foxpro, dBase, FileMaker, Reflex, and others were still a length ahead of MS-Access. After all Microsoft is still playing catchup, though they did manage to buy out Foxpro. Oracle9i and IBM's DB2 by far offer the best performance and functionality for high end SQL servers. Postgresql and MySQL have the mid-range covered and would be what Microsoft's SQL server is trying hardest to compete with. The Microsoft SQL server is not up to snuff nor is it secure.
But almost-as-good won't displaced established tools. That's where leveraging and sales pitches comes in.
Early versions MS-Word were a unique exception among Microsoft's products in that they were actually competitive with contemporary products. However, whether MS-Word variants were actually better than WordPerfect, AMI and others is probably more an issue of taste than something objective. It and MS-Windows were used to shoehorn MS-Excel into sites.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.