Spam Lawsuit Clearinghouses?

cloudscout asks: "Spam is getting worse. Despite complex filtering and DNSBL systems the volume of unsolicited eMail continues to climb. The only promise so far has been an increasing number of laws designed to impede the spammers while others are using existing laws to tackle the problem. So when are we going to see this legal process become a commodity? There are already countless lawyers around the country who will accept a set price to fix traffic tickets, handle divorces and get the IRS off your back. When will we see attorneys who are willing to sue the spammers on your behalf for a reasonable, fixed fee?"

Comments

I dunno...

[NanoGator]

I'd rather deal with SPAM by making it technically harder to send out messages like that. I guess I'm just a little paranoid that one day I'll send out a message and find myself in court.

Why should I pay them?

[gmhowell]

Wouldn't a contingency system work better? Why should I pay the lawyer a set fee when the recovery will likely be greater than that? Why not have it so that I get 10-40% of the recovery, and let the lawyer take the rest?

I see a few problems: first, is there any case law to make this a matter of filling out the correct boilerplate and dropping it off with a judge? Second, how does one collect from out of the country spammers?

It's way too early to do this kind of stuff. Divorces and traffic tickets have been around for quite a while, and the kinks have been worked out of the systems.

Re:Why should I pay them?

[PD]

I'd even have it set so that the lawyer gets 100%. All I want is for the spam to stop. If a lawyer can successfully sue a spammer on behalf of a client, I'd consider that money WELL earned, and the lawyer would deserve all of it. I'm not anti-lawyer. There's quite a lot of really great ones out there, good people. When they work hard and do a good thing, it's a good thing for them to make money at it.

Re:Why does filtering work for me?

[Steve B]

I've heard and read many people (including mail engineers at Y!Mail or Hotmail) claim that spam filtering doesn't work, can't work, the spammers will always be one step ahead, etc.

I still think that the key is to apply the existing computer-cracking laws against the various methods the spammers use to stay "one step ahead". Why is coming up with new variations on how to spell "viagra" any different from shoveling a dictionary into a password prompt, when the objective in both cases is to get into a computer despite a system that was put there to keep you the hell out?