Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Files 15 Lawsuits Against Spammers

Popsikle writes "A Seattle Paper reports that 'Microsoft Corp. announced it has filed 15 lawsuits against alleged e-mail spammers in Washington state and the United Kingdom on Tuesday.' It states the tough anti-spam laws in UK and Washington allows ISP's to sue spammers. This could be a good test of the new anti-spam laws." There's coverage on CNN as well. Microsoft has picked a good venue for such a case.

392 comments

  1. Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by jkrise · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's amazing how while suing spammers and getting all the good PR, MS is
    also blocking anti-spam legislation.
    http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercuryne ws/business/61 13665.htm

    "We have personnel around the world engaged in those battles, and we are tapping that expertise and working with these people to fight spam as well." Can't they do the simple exercise of examining their own user's spam - hotmail users can give billions in a day.

    If hotmail users could even get $5 per spam, they'd be richer than Tiger Woods.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If hotmail users could even get $5 per spam, they'd be richer than Tiger Woods.

      And if I open a bunch of hotmail accounts I could be richer than Oprah!

    2. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by ScuzzMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know that it's that amazing. You can put it off to the usual M$ perfidy if you like, but there are a lot of people who don't like spam who also don't want to see e-mail legislated into the ground by elected officials who don't really know what they are dealing with. I am not familiar with the specifics of the California bill, but it sounds from the link you posted as though it could put a cork in a lot of legitimate e-mail, too. I like the Washington law better, the one that Microsoft is suing under.

      --
      No relation to Happy Monkey
    3. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by jkrise · · Score: 3, Interesting

      " I like the Washington law better, the one that Microsoft is suing under."

      Why? 'Cos the ISP (Internet Spam provider) gets to sue on your behalf (the user) and reap profits? Is spam is so inevitable and untracable, why not allow users to profit from it; if at all they succeed in tracking the source.

      There's more to this than meets the eye, surely.

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    4. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Ethidium · · Score: 4, Insightful
      From the link you posted:

      im Cranton, Microsoft senior corporate attorney, said the company sought to distinguish between deceptive and fraudulent e-mail ads and those by legitimate businesses.

      ``We don't think all commercial e-mail should be banned,'' he said. Microsoft favors self regulation by the industry ``to establish standards that can evolve over time,'' he said.

      I think this is reasonable. The big difference is that when legitimate businesses are sending me unsolicited email, I can click the "remove" link with confidence that I will be removed, not sent more spam. That, and unlike "Enlarge your member!", and porn spam, I'm not going to get in trouble at work for accidentally looking at the Palm Voice in a shared office.

      --
      \
    5. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by jkrise · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ``We don't think all commercial e-mail should be banned,'' he said. Microsoft favors self regulation by the industry ``to establish standards that can evolve over time,'' he said."

      Yeah... like we all know how the industry self-regulated itself during the browser wars, virus wars and virus-alert wars. We all know how 'Java' and 'Trustworthy Computing' and 'DRM' - 'Evolved' over time.

      Looks like MS is suing now, since they may not get another chance once a sensible law is passed.

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    6. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Bullcrap.

      Just look at K-Mart for a great example of this -- I have yet to get them to remove one of my forwarding aliases from their stupid system.

      Why? Some idiot manager bought a cd of 5 million emails to add to their "Bluelight CRAP" email book. One, of course, was the harvested alias of mine.

      So, I called them. Told them in no uncertain terms to take that off.

      "But sir, why don't you just send the unsubscribe from that email account?"

      It's a fucking forwarding alias. I CANNOT SEND MAIL FROM IT. Therefore I never opted in. But K-Mart won't unsubscribe without an email specifically from that address.

      We went back and forth on this for about 15 minutes. I asked for the manager of their phone bank for the email division and got him. He denied ever doing something like that. Then he told me straight-out that only by sending an email to them could I have gotten subscribed in the first place so obviously I had opted in and could opt out the same way.

      He's obviously a fucking liar and DID buy a scavenged email CD from someone, or else they did a web harvest themselves.

      Don't kid yourselves. You can't trust the unsubscribe from a so-called "legitimate" business any more than you can the one from the spammers.

    7. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Eccles · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's more to this than meets the eye, surely.

      You may be right, but don't call me Shirley.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    8. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not try 'forging' your from address in an email to the unsubscribe address?

    9. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Build6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      (a) everyone hates spam
      (b) MS has the legal resources to really have a go at the spammers (and at the least make sure they get a lot of publicity about it)

      Even if they lose, MS will be able to file their legal expenditures under "usefully spent money" in terms of the good publicity they'll buy re: the average joe on the street (and if they win they'll get the PR for free since they'll be recouping $$). All of a sudden they'd no longer be a corporation whose executives were repeatedly caught out prevaricating during their last trial, but instead a corp taking action to help everybody... .

    10. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Thoguth · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what to make of this. I mean, sure, I hate spammers as much as everybody else in the world who isn't getting rich off it, but this smacks of China's crackdown on "terrorists" including not only realy terrorists, but all sorts of people and groups who don't get along with the Chinese government.

      Two to one says somewhere on a bookshelf in Redmond lies a business plan to extend their monopoloy into the spamming business after they legally cripple all competition. That's what "establish standards that evolve over time" means to MS--"establish standards that require everyone to give us money." I've never seen them act any differently.

      --
      The requested URL /iframe/sig.html was not found on this server.
    11. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by tshak · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how while suing spammers and getting all the good PR, MS is
      also blocking anti-spam legislation.


      Because it's not as simple as "anti-spam" legislation. No to pieces of legislation (even if they're within the same category) are the same (duh?). Just read the spam laws in WA, vs. the laws they're trying to block in CA. MS didn't try to block WA's laws.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    12. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Ethidium · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >It's a fucking forwarding alias. I CANNOT SEND MAIL FROM IT.

      Yes you can. Just about any mailer lets you set the "from" address to whatever you want.

      >He's obviously a fucking liar and DID buy a scavenged email CD from someone, or else they did a web harvest themselves.

      Unless somebody else opted in from your mail address. Or you accidentally entered it on a web form and forgot to uncheck the "opt-in" checkbox.

      This kind of ire and anti-corporate attitude is not in any way constructive. Big corporations are a permanent part of our economic system, and in many cases, provide useful goods and services that we all enjoy (major airlines, for instance). I'll be the first to admit that in some cases the corps well overstep their bounds and need to be put in their place (cf Microsoft, SCO, RIAA); but the vast majority of them are in it to make money, which they do best by serving the customer's interest. And when you have a personal problem with a corp, it usually doesn't mean the corp is bad, it means somebody isn't doing their job. Call customer service, write the CEO, and usually things work out in the end.

      If nothing else, when K-Mart spams you, you know whom to sue. The big problem with most spam is if you don't know where it's coming from, you're powerless to stop it.

      --
      \
    13. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roger.

    14. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Nato_Uno · · Score: 5, Informative

      Under the Washington law (Revised Code of Washington 19.190) both the end-user recipient and the "interactive computer service" that that recipient uses may sue the spammer. The "interactive computer service" is not suing on the user's behalf, but on their own behalf.

      And I think this is great, personally. If all major ISPs did this, SPAM load would go down significantly. Of course it wouldn't disappear completely, and the really tricky spammers would be trickier, but the overall load would certainly go down and the remaining SPAM would very likely be easier to block...

      --

      Have fun,

      Nathan 'Nato' Uno
      http://web.unos.net/
    15. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by buzy+buzy · · Score: 1

      Strange sensation....

      Why do I want them both to lose? :-)

      --
      If you get modded down for a first post... What do you get for a last post?
    16. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by nadadogg · · Score: 1

      If MS succeeded in shutting down a few spammer colonies and clean out some of that garbage, I might feel some remorse* next time I witnessed yet another pirated copy of a MS product.



      *nah

      --
      i use linux and windows oh god how can i have an opinion
    17. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by sporty · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how while suing spammers and getting all the good PR, MS is
      also blocking anti-spam legislation.


      I dunno, but the world isn't so black and white. Evil people do good things and good people do evil things in this life.
      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    18. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh?

    19. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "It's a fucking forwarding alias. I CANNOT SEND MAIL FROM IT. Therefore I never opted in. But K-Mart won't unsubscribe without an email specifically from that address."

      Are you aware that the 'from' address in e-mails is an arbitrary string you enter into your e-mail client software? Just change that string to equal the forwarding address, send the 'remove' message, and then change it back. Piece 'o cake.

      "Don't kid yourselves. You can't trust the unsubscribe from a so-called "legitimate" business any more than you can the one from the spammers."

      I am in partial agreement with this. I purchased something from the Indigo.ca online bookstore one time and I kept getting their targetting marketing spam. The message specifically said that since I purchased a programming book, they were sending me information about other books that they thought I might enjoy. Fortunately I used a dedicated @mydomain.org forwarding address for that purchase so I reported the spam and then nuked the forwarded. Problem solved.

      PS: Don't EVER give out a real address, postal or e-mail for anything related to comdex. You'll get loaded with spam and junk-mail.

    20. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by ScuzzMonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Frankly, I like that it allows both. After all, it effects both, doesn't it? It may waste my time, but it takes up bandwidth and diskspace for the ISP. They should probably be allowed some remedy as well. Not to mention that an ISP probably has both more resources and a better idea how to go about pursuing a legal solution than the average end-user. The more people that can sue spammers, the better, no?

      But really, that wasn't what I was thinking of originally--I like Washington's law because it is less restrictive; as long as a piece of e-mail is clearly labeled and meets other requirements, it's not in violation. This will allow through some spam that California's law doesn't, sure--but it also means that if I want to individually (not en masse, mind you) cold-email a prospective client on a web design project, I don't have to worry about getting sued.

      --
      No relation to Happy Monkey
    21. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Badanov · · Score: 0, Troll
      Anti-spam laws and lawsuits are losers. They are a clear violation of the first amendment of the constitution.

      Whether leftwingers like it or not, businesses have an inherent right to advertise for their products using any media they chose and that especially goes for email. The right to business advertising is the heart and soul of free speech.

      These anti-spam laws and the lawsuits will be tossed in a few months on those grounds.

      --
      Dawn of the Dead
    22. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      Actually, California's law is very permissive in regards to spam. It mainly just requires that the spammer use ADV in the subject line (which few do.) Unfortunately, it only allows ISP's to sue.

      For a pretty good summary of laws for all states, see the spamlaws site.

    23. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      You have to draw the line somewhere.

      Ever see Minority Report? Do you think that the First Amendment extends to direct retinal projection? What if a corporation sponsors a hospital - we pay for everything and bring you the best doctors in the world, with the condition that the corporate logo is tattooed on every newborn baby's back?

      This libertarian "the constitution is right and we interpret it literally" attitude has the right idea but it's flawed because any time something is interpreted literally with these kind of broadbrush ideals, some dumbass uses the literal, rigid interpretation against the people it's intended to protect.

    24. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think it's much more simple than that. Microsoft obviously wants to retain the option of spamming. Anti-spam laws might hurt its marketing ability.

      Considering the current state of affairs (spam increasing at an exponential rate) it's clear that nothing currently being done from a technical standpoint is working. To anyone with a clue, it's also quite obvious that we can't wait for new email protocols to be invented, coded for hundreds of platforms, and deployed to almost a billion machines. I look at spam laws as a stop-gap measure. It won't solve the problem, but it can make a dent in it. Maybe 10 years from now when we are on IPv6 and some new email protocol, those laws will be obsolete. Somehow, I doubt it though.

    25. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Nato_Uno · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it depends on the law. In this case, Washington's anti-SPAM law is an extension of their Consumer Protection law. Defrauding or misleading consumers isn't "protected speech" by any interpretation of the Constitution that I've heard, so I doubt this law will be overthrown on those grounds.

      Besides, this law was upheld by Washington State's Supreme court. "Free Speech" wasn't even an issue in the case. A quick Google search for "Washington State supreme court upholds anti-spam law" should turn up plenty of links.

      --

      Have fun,

      Nathan 'Nato' Uno
      http://web.unos.net/
    26. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by ScuzzMonkey · · Score: 1

      Is that the current one, or the proposed one? We're discussing the one currently being proposed, and if that is the main requirement, then the article linked above is wildly off-base.

      --
      No relation to Happy Monkey
    27. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by walt-sjc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've got one that's worse. Some dipshit used my email address for a "buffy the vampire slayer" notification from Amazon.com. This obnoxios spam periodically sends out an email whenever anything new "buffy" related arives at amazon. After trying to login with the "forgot password" stuff which couldn't find the account, I tried for the next 6 months to get the morons at Amazon to remove my email address from their system. It still comes. So I put a 5XX level reject on the SMTP server so that anything from amazon gets rejected. 3 years later, amazon STILL tries to connect to my server, and Still gets rejected. It seems the idiot admins at amazon NEVER EVER remove bad email address from their system.

      So besides the "one click patent" reason to avoid amazon, this is another good reason. I have never bought anything from amazon, and never will.

    28. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by resignator · · Score: 1

      remind me to call you at 3 am for the next 3 months then. i got some penis enlarger you might be interested in.... seriously. remember bandwidth? thats the big difference here. i dont pay for a billboard on the highway. if a spammer is routing mail through some poor smo's server then he is paying for the spammers advertisement. so dont give me that free speech bullshit...

      --
      "At first, we thought it was just another snake cult."
    29. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Kierthos · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ah yes, yet another clueless jackass who doesn't know exactly how the First Amendment works.

      To enlighten you would take far more time then I have. In fact, I suspect that the sun would go cold long before knowledge pentrated the thickness of your skull.

      So, simply put:

      The First Amendment, aka Freedom of Speech, only applies to the government attempting to abridge speech. If a ISP says "You can't send spam on our servers", then tough shit, cousin, it's not a First Amendment violation.

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    30. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I think this is reasonable. The big difference is that when legitimate businesses are sending me unsolicited email, I can click the "remove" link with confidence that I will be removed, not sent more spam.

      There are roughly 5 million corporations in the US alone. That's one hell of a lot of remove links to click. And that's assuming they all actually honor that remove request. And that assumes that your address never gets added to their list again. Generally they can add you back if you "do business with them", and they generally try to include "affiliates" in that.

      But to top it off, a business can be a one man operation. He can simply send out a batch of spams all at once to each person on the list. He can send as many as he likes until you actually log on and click remove to one of them. And the law would quite likely grant a grace period of a month or so for him to actually process the request and stop spamming you. He can keep spaming right up to that deadline. And once he has sent out several hundred million spams he can simply close up his business, throw away the list of "removed" addresses, and start all over again under a new business name.

      A legal solution simply isn't the right route. Spam crosses international borders. We need to overhaul the e-mail system and implement a technological solution.

      There are in fact technologies that can force spammers to pay big bucks in order to spam, yet can preserve anonymous e-mail and keep e-mail nearly 100% free for normal use.

      There are e-stamp technologies that can do this. But don't let the word "stamp" scare you. These aren't like normal stamps, you don't have to pay for each e-mail. Yes, you may have to buy a dozen stamps for a dollar. But in normal use these stamps are good for life. If you're a heavy e-mail user you might need to buy $2 to $5 worth of stamps, but they are essentially permanent. If someone sends you spam or other offensive/abusive e-mail you cancel the stamp they used and YOU COLLECT a nickle or so. You actually get PAID for receiving spam, and it's the spammer who has to pay to buy new stamps.

      Plus mail programs can 'whitelist' people/mailing lists that you know and want to get mail from. People on the whitelist woundn't have to bother including a stamp. It's only strangers who need to do so. If a stranger sends you a stamped e-mail, and it ISN'T junk mail then you simply do nothing and he can reuse his stamp two days later.

      The only issue is that millions of people need to switch over to a new systsm. It will take the backing of someone like Microsoft, AOL, the US government, or the EU to give a good shove initiating the switch.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    31. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by pjrc · · Score: 1
      ... when legitimate businesses are sending me unsolicited email, I can click the "remove" link with confidence that I will be removed, not sent more spam.

      Would you consider Disney to be a legitimate business?

      Let me tell you a little story. Last Christmas season, Robin (girlfriend) wanted a certain collectable disney figure, so I went to disney.com to find and order it.

      At the end of my checkout process, after I'd put in my credit card number, the last page informed me that they had automatically added me to their email marketing list. No checkbox to uncheck... they added me without permission, but they did have a little button I could click to opt-out.

      So I clicked Disney's opt-out button: 404 Not Found Error. Damn thing didn't work and I was pissed.

      I eventually dug up an email contact address (they obviously don't want to hear from end customers... try looking around on their site for it). Someone did reply eventually, asking for more info, and I replied but there was never a second response.

      The SPAM started rolling in. Every message contained an address to supposedly unsubscribe. I replied to every single one to unsubscribe... but after a month (somewhere in February) their regular email promotions were still showing up every several days.

      I use Spam Assassin to filter spam, but I set the threshold pretty high since a lot of random people contact me regarding my website. Disney's un-unsubscribable spam was coming in just under the threshold, so I added a custom rule for it to add a couple points and finally the problem was solved.

      Maybe Disney is the only offender. Maybe my case was a fluke and normally that webpage button works and maybe that month their email unsubscribe was not working for some reason but has been fixed? But I doubt my experience is unique.

      The truth is that they (think they) make money from building that spamy newsletter subscriber list, so they do everything they can to get you on it... including automatically adding you without even asking permission. They have little incentive to let you unsubscribe. So the unsubscribe mechanisms are poorly maintained and tend to not even work.

      Legitimate business, Disney Corporation, and lightweight spammer with non-working unsubscribe.

    32. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by grazzy · · Score: 1

      In other news:

      Microsoft attacks users of opensource software (OSS).

      Richard Stallman: This blatant attack on users of opensource software is outrageous! Microsoft must be stopped!

      Linus Thorvalds: These users did NOTHING but used tools available to many happy users of the opensource community - if microsoft wants to punish then for this crime - I need to be punished too!

      In response Bill Gates has replied:
      This is not at all about opensource software but the misuse of software created with good intentions but misused by evild03rs. (See Iraqis).

    33. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by CKW · · Score: 1

      > Yes you can. Just about any mailer lets you set
      > the "from" address to whatever you want.

      Only an idiot would run an "opt in" system which didn't use the ISP's "from" and just took the user-specified "from" field. To do so would mean that ANYONE could subscribe or unsubscribe you from their services, which would be idiotic and completely defeat the purpose.

    34. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by wirde · · Score: 1
      Yes you can. Just about any mailer lets you set the "from" address to whatever you want.

      Or you can always go:

      telnet [smpt-server] 25

      helo anything
      mail from: [email address]
      rcpt to: [kmart address]
      data
      Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE

      .

      --
      in GNUin GNUin GNUin GNUin GNUin GNUin GNUin GNUSegmentation fault
    35. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Threni · · Score: 1

      > businesses have an inherent right

      Rights are assigned by humans to other humans. If we decide we don't want spam, then it'll become illegal. Using the word `inherent` was a giggle, though - thanks for that!

    36. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is one time I am actually cheering for MS to do something good.

    37. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Airplane reference, you fucking troll

    38. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, I don't want any commercial email offering to sell me anything. Nor do I want any phone calls, or postal mail offering to sell me anything. If I want something, I will research the products available and buy the one that I want.

      I long for the day when ALL commercial communication must work through an opt-in list and if a persons name is not on that list they may not solicit.

      I have taken to lying about almost everything on almost all forms. You get the wrong name, address, zip, and a bullshit redirect email that gets me what I want then I delete the redirect. Enjoy having your mailing lists full with crap information.

      I don't give a rats ass about your need to make a living. Try calling my house, depending on my mood, you might get the third degree about how I'm going to sue you if you call again, I won't bother to sue, I just want to waste your time and piss you off. I genuinely hope that telemarketers have shitty days and go home to complain to their spouses how shitty their job is and how much of an asshole people are. Maybe, they'll figure out eventually that there are ways to make a living without pissing people off.

      Or, I might be the interested redneck who keeps you on the phone for a half hour or more while all my friends are laughing their ass off in the background, or I'm the retard or slow old lady who just doesn't quite get what your asking. Or maybe I'll just start screaming violently at you. The point is, I'm just wasting your time and doing everything I can to make you feel like shit. Don't tell me it doesn't work, I've managed to make at least a few people cry, ah, the power of words. Keep this in mind fuckwads,

      I firmly believe there isn't a single product that NEEDS to be sold via direct marketing of any sort. If you need infomercials, mailings, spam, or telemarketing to sell your crap then the world would be a better place without your shithole of a product.

      I consider it my duty to make your work as difficult, painful and unprofitable as I can. I enoy wasting salespeople's time for my own entertainment. Every time you contact me BEFORE I contact you, you are wasting your time. I NEVER fucking EVER buy ANYTHING that is direct marketed. There are no exceptions to this.

      So fuck your commercial entity that needs to intrude on my life to sell your garbage. I hope you fail and lose your life savings going down in flames trying to hock your bullshit wares to people who neither need or want them.

      Time for another bong hit....

    39. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enlarge your DRM!

    40. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talk about two-faced! Make no mistake about it: Microsoft loves spam. Here's why: Hotmail is the #1 email provider, but it's not a revenue stream for them. It's a way for them to get people 'into their front door', that's all. What they really want is people to buy something (such as paid MSN email service, which promises 'much better spam fighting'). So by allowing spammers to trash their free service and drive customers to their paid service they're just where they want to be. In the mean time they tell everyone how they're fighting spam (yeah, right) and get good press for it. Don't misunderstand: they don't want spammers on their paid service, but they do want them on their free service. If HoTMaiL (get it? HTML mail) was serious about it they'd let me block by IP address, not by forged domain names (what a joke!).

    41. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And "huh?" is the proper response, asshat. Try watching the fucking movie before getting an inflated sense of self importance because you recognize 2 whole references to it. Fucktard.

    42. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by cshark · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that. SPAM is a lot more harmful to network infrastructure than the users themselves. Sure, it's annoying. But SPAM costs Microsoft (and every other ISP OSP) real money.

      And it's a really nice way to look good in the press.

      They need it.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    43. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by IIH · · Score: 1
      So I put a 5XX level reject on the SMTP server so that anything from amazon gets rejected. 3 years later, amazon STILL tries to connect to my server, and Still gets rejected.

      Make it a 4XX level delay, and include a comment about the temperature of hell being currenlty too high for you to accept any emails from them.

      --
      Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
    44. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      Only an idiot would run an "opt in" system which didn't use the ISP's "from" and just took the user-specified "from" field. To do so would mean that ANYONE could subscribe or unsubscribe you from their services, which would be idiotic and completely defeat the purpose.

      All the list I'm on (intentionally, at least) use double-opt-in. You subscribe under any address you feel like, and they send back a token. If the address you gave them isn't yours, you can't reply with the correct token so the address you provided doesn't get subscribed.

      For unsubscribing, most will accept a single unsub request. Very few people know or care what mailing lists I'm subscribed to, and I can't think of any valid reason someone might go to the trouble of unsubbing me from a mailing list. Even if they did I'd get the confirmation of it and just subscribe again.. a trivial inconvenience.

      Also; where exactly is "The ISP's From"?

      Most (not all) mailservers attach the IP address; I've yet to see any mail server (not ONE) that looks up the associated username for an SMTP session. Everything else in those headers is user-supplied; "HELO/EHLO", "MAIL FROM", dates, message-id's, mailer info, etc, and trivial to mess with.. go read the rfcs.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    45. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Only an idiot would run an "opt in" system which didn't use the ISP's "from" and just took the user-specified "from" field. To do so would mean that ANYONE could subscribe or unsubscribe you from their services, which would be idiotic and completely defeat the purpose.

      Actually most of the corporations out there are idiots by your definition. Do a search on 'mainsleaze' in Google Groups and you will get the idea. However, the accepted term is clueless.

      And yes, many lists are set up precisely so that ANYONE can subscribe you - its part of the reason there is such a big spam problem.

    46. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tracking spam is a LOT harder then before. They are getting sneakier by the day.

      I get word that a new company is being formed "spamtrackers.com" which specializes in tracking down spammers.

      I checked the URL, site isn't put up yet, according to people I talked with.

      Word has it, they seem to be really good at tracking these buggers down.

    47. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      You could simply piggy back a stamp as as encrypted/encoded tag attached to a mail. Mail without valid stamps can be simply rejected by the mail server, and you and your friends/colleagues would send mails with the stamps. The stamp having been used for the email, and confirmed received by you is available for the originator to reclaim and send again. If you do not confirm it, it is now invalid, and the originator must get a new one. If for every new stamp, instead of paying money, you must just type in a numeric code printed in a gif image on the registration page - they are free, considering that each recipient will need a valid stamp - unless spammers have very sophisticated OCR programs(fuzzify the text to make that difficult) then they will have to hand type something for each and every mail they send. For people subscribed to mailing list, they would each send you a stamp which would be encoded together with the senders stamp into an attachment on the group mailing. The subscribers clients or servers would then reject mail without a stamp which was encoded with their stamp.
      As for who would own it/run it, if the open source community build software which will use shared resources and one tracker page. So that a batch of stamps are handled by some machine on the net in a fashion not to dissimilar to the distributed model of bittorrent.
      Of course a furthar refinement would be that if you have your own user stamp(or key) you would give that to the stamp issuing web page, which along with asking you to type numbers, would email you with the final key. Therefore requiring you to provide a valid email address which would also be encoded and verifyable against the stamp.
      I like this notion- as long as it is done free - which it very much could be.. and like I say, by having users use distributed clients(with redundancy) then we dont end up with huge loads on single key-verification and registration servers.

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
    48. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by CKW · · Score: 1

      > All the list I'm on (intentionally, at least) use double-opt-in.

      Now that would work with his forwarding alias problem.

      My ISP however will not pass any e-mail that doesn't contain their own domain-name in the "from" e-mail address. When I used Navigator 4.7x for e-mail and Usenet, I would use a munged e-mail hostname in my profile. However if I forgot to switch it back before sending e-mail, the e-mail would be silently dropped by my ISP's systems. Come to think of it, they didn't always used to do that.. so I guess some people might be able to do what you suggest even if the list wasn't double-opt-in.

    49. Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      My ISP however will not pass any e-mail that doesn't contain their own domain-name in the "from" e-mail address.

      Are you sure they're not just checking for domains that _exist_? I know my local mailserver won't accept mail unless the hostname in MAIL FROM can resolve. That's the default config under freebsd, and it drops about a third of spam right there.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
  2. all the money in the world by frieked · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hmmmm, let's see... They can sue for up to $500 per message sent and there's millions and millions of spams sent by these people every day...

    So (500 * Millions and Millions) = Microsoft is suing for all the money in the world

    --

    I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
    -Xenocrates
    1. Re:all the money in the world by notque · · Score: 1

      The question is, why is the ISP allowed to sue for this?!

      The reason for the law to sue spammers is if the spam is deceptive.

      If the spam is deceptive is irrelevant to the isp, which is the one suing.

      This should be an end user issue, that the end users get the profits from.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    2. Re:all the money in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His math is wrong, but $500 times the number of spams sent could come close to all the money in the world :)

    3. Re:all the money in the world by Nato_Uno · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've successfully sued as an "interactive service provider" under this law. The justification seems to be that the spammer is engaging in unfair/deceptive business practices at the expense of the "interactive service provider", so that provider should be allowed to seek compensation for that.

      --

      Have fun,

      Nathan 'Nato' Uno
      http://web.unos.net/
    4. Re:all the money in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you think about it as 500 * 1,000,000,000 (per day) * 365 days that equals 182,500,000,000,000. Is there 182 trillion dollars in the world?

    5. Re:all the money in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll just check my sock draw.

      William Gates III

    6. Re:all the money in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Microsoft is suing for all the money in the world

      Don't they already have it?

    7. Re:all the money in the world by ulmanms · · Score: 1

      If you're an ISP, you can actually sue for $1000/msg under the WA law, so in reality it's 2*(all the money in the world).

    8. Re:all the money in the world by notque · · Score: 1

      The justification seems to be that the spammer is engaging in unfair/deceptive business practices at the expense of the "interactive service provider"

      So the effect, which is targeted at the customer, is deemed less important?

      Okay. Fine. Then why does it matter what the content of the spam is?

      The content should only come into case if we are considering the customer, which we are not. Just the deceptive business practices.

      And the expense may be the of ISP, but I pay for my use of that expense. I think that "deceptive spams" are not deceptive at all.

      I wasn't fooled. I asked for them!

      Oh, you're still suing. Because it isn't about me, it's about potential profit.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    9. Re:all the money in the world by letxa2000 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      There is currently about $675 billion dollars in U.S. currency in circulation. If U.S. currency is $675 billion I highly doubt the rest of the world has an additional 181.3 trillion dollars in circulation.

      The above link also states that more than half of U.S. currency is in circulation *outside* of the U.S., so there's less than $330 billion in circulation within our country. Amazing isn't it? No, that doesn't mean that Bill Gates has 20% of the nation's wealth. It just demonstrates how money is created by the banking system. There are those that misunderstand this process (or don't believe it, amazingly enough!) and state that for someone to become rich someone else has to become poor. Thanks to the banking system this is NOT necessarily the case and also explains why a $10 trillion economy can work with only $330 billion in currency.

    10. Re:all the money in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That are notes and coins, bank deposits and such are also money :) and maybe bill own's some stocks, real estate??

    11. Re:all the money in the world by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      The big reason we can be a $10 trillion economy and only have $330 billion in currency is because not all things of value are in the form of currency. Diamonds.....Gold.....Realestate.....Beer (oh wait, thats free).

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    12. Re:all the money in the world by Nato_Uno · · Score: 1

      Under Washington's anti-SPAM law (RCW 19.190), the recipient is allowed to claim up to $500 in damages per offense. The "interactive service provider" is considered to bear a larger burden than the consumer because of the cumulative effect, and is allowed to claim up to $1000 per offense.

      The content of the SPAM is significant because the law (RCW 19.190) is written as an extension to the "Consumer Protection" law (RCW 19.86). The SPAM is illegal not because it's SPAM, but specifically because it "contains false or misleading information in the subject line" (RCW 19.190.020(1)(b)) OR "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" (RCW 19.190.020(1)(a)).

      The definition of "misleading", as you point out, can be fairly ambiguous. My guess is that either Microsoft is suing on SPAM whose subject lines are completely unrelated to the content (which can be construed to be "misleading" from a legal perspective whether the actual recipient is misled or not - it's the intent to mislead that matters then), or that they're going after the people who are forging headers (which is easier to prove, and falls under RCW 19.190.020(1)(b)).

      And no, for me it wasn't about potential profit. It was about making SPAM unprofitable for SPAMmers.

      --

      Have fun,

      Nathan 'Nato' Uno
      http://web.unos.net/
    13. Re:all the money in the world by -brazil- · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the amount of cash in circulation, which is tiny fraction of the actual money in the US, let alone the world. Remember, money is a fiction, no matter whether it's given a physical representation or not.

      --

      The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
      --Henry Kissinger

    14. Re:all the money in the world by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      $500 per e-mail times 400 spam per day. Wow, I could retire by the end of the week. My procmail currently deletes some stuff outright and I still get 400 or so that I put in a junk folder. For $500 per email, I'd even stop deleting some of the stuff outright.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  3. My Turn to sue! by notque · · Score: 1

    The lawsuits accuse the defendants collectively of flooding Microsoft's computer systems and its customers with more than 2 billion deceptive unsolicited e-mail messages.

    That happened to our entire computer network 2 weeks ago. All of those deceptive messages from BillGates@microsoft.com

    I will sue you, you will pay me. If it wasn't you Microsoft, please sue the people who spoofed your address, and recoup from them.

    Thank you.

    --
    http://use.perl.org
    1. Re:My Turn to sue! by Xugumad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh no. No no no no NO. If someone spoofs millions of spams, coming from your e-mail address, and you end up being sued for vast amounts of money as a result, would you consider it fair? It is in no way Microsoft's fault that someone faked their address, and as such they shouldn't be sued for it.

      I'm not sure they should be suing for it, either, although I'm strongly of the opinion that pretending to be someone else, in whatever medium, should be illegal. I believe in the right to anonymity, not the right to tell everyone you're me!

    2. Re:My Turn to sue! by tompaulco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. I get several e-mails a day from ISPs saying that they deleted a virus attached to the e-mail I sent them. Turns out that someone is spoofing my domain name. Seems like if it's illegal for someone to sign my name, it should be illegal for them to pretend to be me on the 'net, particularly when they could potentially be exposing ME to a lawsuit if they happen to send the e-mail to one of the states wherer it is illegal.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:My Turn to sue! by dissy · · Score: 1

      > I believe in the right to anonymity, not the right to tell everyone you're me!

      Thats why all emails need to be cryptographically signed.
      Then you dont accept unsigned emails into your mail server.

      Unfortunatly this goes aginst the business modals of most ISPs and companys like MS, so it will never be allowed to happen :(

    4. Re:My Turn to sue! by scatalogical · · Score: 1

      I have a couple of points to bring up about spam. I work for a company that sends out millions of e-mails a day. We get them by users signing up for things on our sites. I know we don't get addresses any other way because I am the one who manages that stuff. At this very minute we are getting thousands of aol user's unsubscribe e-mails they have forwarded to aol's admins instead of clicking on the unsubscribe link. I have observed the following things:

      1. Users are idiots that call e-mail they have in fact requested spam.
      2. Sometimes e-mail gets blocked for a time by spam filters and months later the user starts getting it and calls it spam. This is understandable, but still doesn't make the e-mail spam.
      3. Our return address is faked on e-mail and we get responses from users threatening to tell the FTC and other idiocy. Apparently your average clueless user doesn't understand you could train a chimp to fake return addresses. My favorite part of this is that they are now guilty of sending unsolicited e-mail, the same thing they are accusing us of doing. Even a quick glance at the headers or the site in question is often enough to show the address was faked.
      5. Users don't click on the unsubscribe button because they think this will confirm their address and instead send it to the ISP as spam.

      So, to summarize:

      Spam is bad and the ones who make a business of sending unsolicited data are asses, but people are also imbeciles that call stuff they actually did sign up for spam.

  4. Full list of charges including details by Wizard+of+OS · · Score: 5, Informative

    A full list can be found on microsoft's site:

    http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/Ju n0 3/0617SpamEnforcementFS.asp

    </karmawhore>

    --

    --
    If code was hard to write, it should be hard to read
    1. Re:Full list of charges including details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " A full list can be found on microsoft's site:". When I clicked on the link I was hoping to find a full list of all the email addresses discussed. Very disappointing... :(

    2. Re:Full list of charges including details by Anime_Fan · · Score: 0

      Nice list...

      These are actually more than the average spammer it seems to me (I don't get much spam, Sweden seems to be good to live in when it comes to spam - unless you have a company e-mail).

      Some of these people committed fraud, and should rot in hell. Could only see one w/ explicit content though (quick scan). Adult spam should not be sent, and be dealt with swiftly.
      Think of the children - they're more important to protect.

    3. Re:Full list of charges including details by Croaker · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ah, this page brought a smile to my face just by knowing that soon, a Google search for "beefupyourpenis.com" will probably lead to a Microsoft page.

    4. Re:Full list of charges including details by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "A full list can be found on microsoft's site:"

      Too bad Alan Ralsky is not in the list of defendants.

    5. Re:Full list of charges including details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Think of the children - they're more important to protect."

      That's rich coming from someone whose slashdot nick (anime_fan) shows they are a fan of Japanese animated child pornography.

    6. Re:Full list of charges including details by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Googlebait: beefupyourpenis.com

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    7. Re:Full list of charges including details by moroderzone · · Score: 1

      There shure are a lot of spammers named "John Doe"!

  5. Microsoft? Spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    But... who do we root against? If only Linus were somehow involved, it'd all be so clear!

    My brain hurts!

  6. ahhh crap...... by Lxy · · Score: 5, Funny

    We hate spammers.
    We hate Microsoft.
    Microsoft sues spammers.
    Dangit.

    --

    There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
    :wq
    1. Re:ahhh crap...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lxy,

      Just relax, take a deep breath, and recall Newton's Little-Known Seventh Law: A bird in the hand is safer than one overhead.

    2. Re:ahhh crap...... by YomikoReadman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Even though I really hate to say this, and am kicking my self in the ass as I write this.. I see it going like this. We hate Spam We hate Spammers We hate Microsoft We hate Spam and Spammers less than We hate Microsoft We like Microsoft for sueing Spammers The Hill takes note Sueing Spammers is Unnecessary because They are Hunted like Animals by the Law Microsoft did something good, after all *Sighs* I Hate to say it, but this could be good.

      --
      I have no regrets, this is the only path.
      My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
    3. Re:ahhh crap...... by yatest5 · · Score: 5, Funny
      Linux: Telling Microsoft where to go since 1991

      Ha, that's like 'school nerds, telling high school jocks where to go since 1991 - "jocks, please go to the prom and screw the hottest chicks in school"'.

      --
      • Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
    4. Re:ahhh crap...... by a_timid_mouse · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah.
      One of them has to lose.
      We like to see them lose.
      It's a win-win situation for us! Either the spammers lose and stop making money from their disgusting trade, or M$ loses and wastes their money suing the spammers. I say they deserve each other!

    5. Re:ahhh crap...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Are you new to Slashdot? Why aren't you thinking up some way to indicate that Microsoft CREATED the spam themselves so that they could get the good PR from suing the spammers? Any Slashdotter worth his bytes would have been doing this before they were even done reading the headline!

    6. Re:ahhh crap...... by Lxy · · Score: 1, Troll

      School nerds:

      "What the hell would I want a hot chick for? At least my computer comes with documentation. These hot chicks have too many undocumented features and there's just not enough time in my high school career to figure it out!"

      --

      There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
      :wq
    7. Re:ahhh crap...... by TheDredd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For the Microsoft haters out there:
      Microsoft files 15 lawsuits against spammers to preserve HD space on Hotmail servers, and to make a bit of money
      For the Microsoft lovers out there:
      Microsoft files 15 lawsuits against spammers to prevent their customers from receiving unwanted mail

    8. Re:ahhh crap...... by Sabalon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, I like Microsoft. I just hate their business practices.

    9. Re:ahhh crap...... by notque · · Score: 1, Funny

      Everyone told me that if I worked hard in school, and embraced my geekdom, the high school jocks would be working at Jack in the Box, while I was screwing the hottest chicks with the most money.

      I'm still waiting.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    10. Re:ahhh crap...... by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

      The upside is that no matter who loses, we win!

    11. Re:ahhh crap...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh huh... no matter who wins, we lose

    12. Re:ahhh crap...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what you get for listening to other people.

    13. Re:ahhh crap...... by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      "We hate spammers.
      We hate Microsoft.
      Microsoft sues spammers.
      "

      Doesn't really matter: nobody's going to get anymore emails from support@microsoft.com for a long, long time.

    14. Re:ahhh crap...... by VCAGuy · · Score: 4, Funny
      At least my computer comes with documentation.

      On my first date with my girlfriend, I wore the shirt that said:

      $> man woman
      $> Segmentation fault (core dumped)

      ...the nice thing is that she actually got the joke!

      --
      Q: "Why do sound techs say 'check 1, 2'?"
      A: "Cause if they could count any higher they'd be lighting techs."
    15. Re:ahhh crap...... by mog · · Score: 1

      I'm confused. Does your version of man fork and exit? I don't get why the segfault is after a prompt. Is this a new feature? Psuedo-prompted segfaults?

    16. Re:ahhh crap...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my favorite is:

      >man sex
      No manual entry for sex.

    17. Re:ahhh crap...... by radd0 · · Score: 1

      Even though I really hate to say this, and am kicking my self in the ass as I write this.. I see it going like this. We hate Spam We hate Spammers We hate Microsoft We hate Spam and Spammers less than We hate Microsoft We like Microsoft for sueing Spammers The Hill takes note Sueing Spammers is Unnecessary because They are Hunted like Animals by the Law Microsoft did something good, after all *Sighs* I Hate to say it, but this could be good.

      I actually read this twice expecting some sort of secret hidden message, what with the capricious usage of your shift-key.

      -r

    18. Re:ahhh crap...... by YomikoReadman · · Score: 1

      nah, its simply my inability to preview the message, which in hindsight should not have been done using html.

      --
      I have no regrets, this is the only path.
      My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
    19. Re:ahhh crap...... by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Well, I think the answer is simple.

      Root for the spammers first. Then one by one we'll all switch to rooting for MS. Maybe even root for a huge long drawn out battle for years and years with very expensive lawyers. Then in the end, even though the lawyers win (MS and spammers lose) then maybe MS and spammers both go out of business.

      Well, we can dream anyways.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    20. Re:ahhh crap...... by cheesekeeper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have to say that I for one am glad to have Microsoft doing "the right thing" for once.
      Even if they are evil in their other doings, let's at least recognize that in the war on Spam, it is going to take a few gorillas to clean up the mess. I'm hoping that Yahoo, Earthlink, RR, etc. bring some lawsuits right away for spamming their customers.
      Let's get the spammers out in the open!
      Even if they don't win the lawsuits, these seem like some pretty shady businesses, and with two or three big companies challenging them in court, it wouldn't take long for them to go bankrupt.

      Die, spammer, die!

      --

      Best read in good ol' Monaco 9 point.

    21. Re:ahhh crap...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh good, moderators are void of humor.

    22. Re:ahhh crap...... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Main Entry: demÂaÂgogue /'de-m&-"gÃg/
      Function: noun
      1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
      - demÂaÂgoguÂery

      [Merriam-Webster Online]

    23. Re:ahhh crap...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...then maybe MS and spammers both go out of business."

      Sounds like a grand bit of fantasy to me, however, sending spam is nearly free. The only way to get "spammers" out of business completely is with an iron fist (read: Gov't or possibly M$), clenched upon the internet. What would you rather have: No spam or the freedom that let's you choose to spam?

    24. Re:ahhh crap...... by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, its a dream... I think I mentioned that though.

      Agreed on the idea that we shouldn't have the government or MS deciding on what mail should be going through our systems. Granted I don't really get a terribly large amount of spam (Though my work address is getting stuff about stock quotes now, kinda annoying).

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    25. Re:ahhh crap...... by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      " Nah. One of them has to lose. We like to see them lose. "

      Good point. This is the way I am looking at it - Which headline would you like to see?

      1. Microsoft loses anti-spam lawsuit. Spammers rejoice.

      2. Microsoft wins anti-spam lawsuit. Collects millions in damages.

      I would personally prefer to see #2.

    26. Re:ahhh crap...... by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      Don't know about that... I'm currently working with a frat-boy jock in my department. He's the administrative assistant, while I'm the assistant chief engineer, making double his salary. Oh, and I was dating a former Hawaiian Tropic model for a few months.

      Things have definitely turned around since my black trenchcoat wearing days.

      -T

    27. Re:ahhh crap...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      At least until Columbine...

    28. Re:ahhh crap...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That you actually wore that shirt on a date is really pathetic.

    29. Re:ahhh crap...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like cheese.

    30. Re:ahhh crap...... by Dumbush · · Score: 1

      Easy

      We kill spammers now, we hate Microsoft later

    31. Re:ahhh crap...... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      There comes a certain age in women when what is attractive to them ceases to be Trans-Ams with huge thumping sound systems, and becomes security and predictability. I have heard it said that no woman wants to date a geek, but they all want to marry one. I'd have to agree. Geeks tend to improve with age, whereas jocks tend to max out at 17.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    32. Re:ahhh crap...... by notque · · Score: 1

      Things have definitely turned around since my black trenchcoat wearing days.

      Remember when Black Trenchcoat meant computer geek, and not shooter?

      Memories...

      I should unretire my black trenchcoat for the weekend, as well as the large black boots.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    33. Re:ahhh crap...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On my first date with my girlfriend, I wore the shirt that said:

      $> man woman
      $> Segmentation fault (core dumped) ...the nice thing is that she actually got the joke!


      Sometimes I think I'm a serious dork hanging around on slashdot. Then something like this comes around...

      Guy:

      Actually buys this dork shirt
      Actually wears this dork shirt
      Incredibly, wears this dork shirt on a date
      More incredibly, wears this dork shirt on a first date
      Mind-bogglingly, publicly brags about it

      Gal:

      Actually willing to date this dork in the dork shirt
      Actually gets the joke
      Actually goes out with him more than once

      So there are at least 2 people out there that have utterly out-dorked me. If I tried for a thousand years, I could never attain such stratospheric heights of ueberdorkdom.

      Thank you.

    34. Re:ahhh crap...... by Zeriel · · Score: 1

      ...considering the girl got it, I'd say it was more "attentive to her hobbies" than "pathetic".

      As an aside, I'd be willing to bet that the class of Slashdotters that are most likely to be single are the ones who always troll in this vein (i.e., geeks don't know about women, no one on slashdot has a girl evar, etc.)

      --
      "America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
    35. Re:ahhh crap...... by Lxy · · Score: 1

      Q: "Why do sound techs say 'check 1, 2'?"
      A: "Cause if they could count any higher they'd be lighting techs."


      Q: "Why should you never run over a lighting tech on a bike?"
      A: "It might be your bike."

      --

      There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
      :wq
  7. So they win! by kamukwam · · Score: 1

    I think Microsoft will probably win this case. They have enough money and spamming is illegal use of e-mail. Hopefully, that will scare other spammers away.

  8. Microsoft Sues Spammers! by YomikoReadman · · Score: 1

    Wow, I am amazed. Microsoft is Fighting the Good Fight! Maybe now people on the Hill will step up, take note, and finally get in gear about getting some anti-spam legislature.

    --
    I have no regrets, this is the only path.
    My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
    1. Re:Microsoft Sues Spammers! by Misch · · Score: 1

      They are taking note, but the only "legislation" they're proposing is being paid for by the Direct Marketing Association.

      According to Spamhaus.org, all the proposed legislation basically legitimizes "opt-out" instead of requiring "opt-in" like the Europeans do.

      All todays spammers applaud [Billy] Tauzin's [(R-LA), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce] "Reduction in Distribution of Spam Act", as does the Direct Marketing Association. It's what spammers have always dreamed of. They would no longer need to hide their identities to thwart disconnection, on the contrary, once spamming is legal they would be able to sue any Internet Service Providers who disconnect them for 'spamming legally'. All of todays spammers will instantly increase their volumes ten-fold flooding the Internet in 'legal' spams, "ADV: Grow your Penis", "ADV: Want Some Viagra?", "ADV: Wanna spy of your Wife?", etc. With the "Reduction in Distribution of Spam Act" we'll wish for the 'little' spam problem we had today when spam was only 50% of all email on the Internet.

      --

      --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
    2. Re:Microsoft Sues Spammers! by YomikoReadman · · Score: 1

      Therein lies the Catch. Microsoft doesn't go for a soft kill like that. They go for the throat, meaning that if someone important does something that microsoft wants, then it will be an opt-in law, not an opt-out. Besides, there are various opt-in laws that have gone up, but the ones that get all the coverage are the opt-out. TechTV's "The Screen Savers" had a story on this last year as I recall, but I couldn't find a link to the story.

      --
      I have no regrets, this is the only path.
      My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
  9. This is a win-win situation! by Fefe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let them sue until they die of old age!

    And this time I don't even care how much money is sunk into the greedy hands of their respective lawyers.

    1. Re:This is a win-win situation! by Fammy2000 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be easier for Microsoft to use the back doors in their products to disable spammers?

      What, there's nothing wrong with that idea Senator Hatch...

      --
      If I had something intelligent to say, I would have said it.
    2. Re:This is a win-win situation! by Nexzus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah. Then they'd just use their own products to ensure they never age.

      You know, that miracle pill seen on Oprah, NBC, CNN that actually burns fat while reversing aging.

      --
      Karma: Can only be portioned out by the Cosmos.
  10. Great but... by wiggys · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is really great and everything, but they can only sue the spammers they can track down and identify.

    AFAIK, some spammers go to great lengths to keep their identities hidden (hi-jacking other people's computer systems etc) so although the threat of legal action will be a big deterrent there's always going to be spam unless we can come up with a technological solution to stop it.

    --

    Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.

    1. Re:Great but... by Steve+B · · Score: 5, Funny
      although the threat of legal action will be a big deterrent there's always going to be spam unless we can come up with a technological solution to stop it

      True, but not particularly relevant. A convincing demonstation that spamming is likely to result in 2-5 years of testing the effectiveness of your cellmate's herbal Viagra and penile enhancement, won't deter everybody, but it will deter enough people to keep the bandwidth theft level down to something manageable.

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    2. Re:Great but... by NetJunkie · · Score: 1

      You can find them if you want to. Remember, I have to be able to get money to the seller. If the spam is illegal they can get search warrants and find out who owns that phone number/PO Box/whatever.

    3. Re:Great but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats assuming that the spam message originated from that particular organization that is advertised.

      Who is to say that ABC corp wouldn't decide to spam millions of people with an advertisement that appears to have come from XYZ corp (their competitor)?

      Or perhaps a student on summer break decides to simply start fake spamming "for the fun of it".

      Hijack a few servers, run the spam through a handful of open relays, trash some logs and your pretty undetectable.

    4. Re:Great but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orr....they could move to another state =P

    5. Re:Great but... by Croaker · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that the point of spam is to extract money from suckers. In order to do that, the suckers have to have a way to get the money to you. If the suckers can get money to you, the Microsoft bloodhound lawyers can follow that trial. You can try dodging, money laundering, and so forth, but unless you're using the same accountants that the mafia and drug cartels are using, you're going to get burned.

    6. Re:Great but... by digime · · Score: 1

      I've never understood the argument that spammers are hard to track down. These people are usually selling something. In order for someone to buy whatever it is, they have to know where to send their money. If you know that, you're always only one step away from finding out the spammer's identity.

      If they're asking that spam recipients send money to a bank account - contact the bank, legitimate business - contact the business, address/PO box - contact the USPS, web site - WHOIS.

      They can obscure their identity in the email itself, sure, but there is always a money trail.

    7. Re:Great but... by lelitsch · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I have a pretty high confidence level that Joe Spammer's ways of trying to hide their identity will pale in comparison to what Microsoft's techies and legal department can muster. After all, for spam to work, they need to give their customers a chance to fork over some cash. And if one of the largest legal departments in the world starts going after whoever ends up with the cash, good luck.

      Obligatory Stephenson quote: "Microsoft are 10 times smarter and about 100 times
      more aggressive than any government"

    8. Re:Great but... by letxa2000 · · Score: 2, Informative
      although the threat of legal action will be a big deterrent there's always going to be spam unless we can come up with a technological solution to stop it.

      It'd be great to stop spam, but doing so requires major changes to the email infrastructure on too many computers worldwide. I'm not saying it can't or won't happen, but it's not going to happen soon enough. Spammers will destroy email first.

      The best solution available to us today are filters. And with Bayesian it works really damn well. No, it doesn't avoid the bandwidth and disk space involved in transferring the spam, but it does address the single largest cost of spam: the time of the end user. When compared to disk space and bandwidth, the user's time is the single largest cost of spam. If filters can reduce the amount of time users spend dealing with spam then we've solved the major cost component of dealing with spam.

      Of course, if fewer users see spam then spam becomes less and less effective and there is less motivation for spammers to send it.

      The solution is technical, not legislative--although I do support suing spammers for theft of services, fraud, etc.

    9. Re:Great but... by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      For law enforcement, it is very easy to find a spammer. Just go to the owner of the product that is spamvertized and ask who sent it.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    10. Re:Great but... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Just because a 100% cure-all fix is impossible doesn't mean it's not worth trying.

    11. Re:Great but... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      but they can only sue the spammers they can track down and identify.

      According to this list of the cases they have names of 11 of the 15 people or companies.

      Doesn't say how, but I've always thought that commercial spam MUST give you a way to contact them, otherwise how would you buy anything? Usually the URLs are bogus or shortlived, but they give PO Boxes or phone numbers, which are a little more trouble to track down, but give a hard ID when you do.

  11. OK, let me think... by da3dAlus · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's Wednesday, so is MS good?
    MS vs Spammers, so the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
    But MS runs Hotmail, so the enemy of my enemy is my enemy.

    I'm so confused.

    --

    Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
  12. so by The+Terrorists · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If Microsoft is able to successfully stop the spammers will your views towards them change? Power in the computing industry is not always deleterious to its constituents.

    1. Re:so by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1
      That is like saying that since SCO is a tiny little company bravely standing up the giant overpowerfull IBM we should support them.

      Companies and people should be judged on the total of their deeds. Youre argument seems to be that a tiny little good deed, most likely motivated by extreme selfintrest (considering they are also fighting antispam laws) should suddenly make us forget all the bad deeds.

      I for one am not impressed.

      This falls in the same categories as AOL sueing spammers or the money back for the CD price fixing. If you think they did this because they cared about you then life must be a very nice and fluffy place for you.

      --

      MMO Quests are like orgasms:

      You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  13. Yay for Microsoft! by JamesSharman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope the Slashdot crowd shows a little maturity on this one. I dislike many of Microsofts tactics as much as the next man but in this case Iâ(TM)m rather pleased to see the might of their legal department behind something that could benefit us all.

    1. Re:Yay for Microsoft! by notque · · Score: 1

      Because I'm sure Microsoft will write a check to each person who was duped by a deceptive internet advertisement.

      You are correct sir. We will ignore all of Microsofts negative qualities! Everything is in the past, because 1 department of the corperate giant which is Microsoft happens to be using our legal system to sue for a whole mess load of money that none of us will ever see.

      Microsoft doing it because it will make them money. Woohoo.

      You're right. Maturity. I love Microsoft. Get me a copy of XP right now!

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    2. Re:Yay for Microsoft! by toopc · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Microsoft doing it because it will make them money. Woohoo.

      Hardly. What you and other seem to forget that while Microsoft may be able to sue for $500 (or $1000) per, it's not like the Spammers are going to have that type of money. In other words, If they only have $20,000 Microsoft can sue them for $100 million, but they're not going to get more than $20,000.

      After you factor in the cost of Microsoft's lawyers, I seriously doubt they'll make any meaningful amount of money...at least meaningful to Microsoft.

    3. Re:Yay for Microsoft! by notque · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What you and other seem to forget that while Microsoft may be able to sue for $500 (or $1000) per, it's not like the Spammers are going to have that type of money. In other words, If they only have $20,000 Microsoft can sue them for $100 million, but they're not going to get more than $20,000.

      You make a fair point, but the good press will be worth it's weight in gold, which I'm sure is what Microsoft is thinking.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    4. Re:Yay for Microsoft! by tshak · · Score: 1

      You make a fair point, but the good press will be worth it's weight in gold, which I'm sure is what Microsoft is thinking.


      Or maybe they run a large ISP in which spam clogs their mail servers (costing them money) and annoys their customers.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    5. Re:Yay for Microsoft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You are correct sir. We will ignore all of Microsofts negative qualities!

      Don't be an ass. He's right -- there are good things that Microsoft can do. This could be one of them. And, personally, I don't care that I don't see that money. I'd rather not have porn and viagra ads in my inbox all the time.

      More power to MS.

    6. Re:Yay for Microsoft! by TalMaximus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh please. It's like we're all walking this thin line and some of us are so afraid we're going to stray to the right side that we stray to the left. Case in point, Microsoft puts their weight behind a menace that drives businesses crazy. All of us who are disappointed with MS tactics in the past are quick to suspect ulterior motives and be suspicious to a point of annoyance. Sure what they're doing will work to their advantage, but as a network admin it also works to my advantage and to the advantage of all the other network admins who have to use MS (or M$ as some prefer) products because they aren't allowed to transition over to open-source alternatives just yet. For me to say "good for them" on this point doesn't mean I want to run out and buy everything they sell or that anyone should. The fact is if the lawsuit works out positively and reduces the amount of spam invading our servers then more power to this it. Let's not get so MS paranoid that we curse it even when they do something that could benefit us all for a change.

    7. Re:Yay for Microsoft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree that a bit more maturity needs to be shown here.

      It seems like the majority of the people posting on this topic have the black-and-white view that Microsoft = BAD, Spam = BAD. Fighting spam = GOOD.

      Why is Microsoft "BAD"? Because they make some products that you feel are sub-standard? Does this make Microsoft "bad", or just "incompetent"?Nobody is forcing you to these products. There are plenty of alternatives out there. If you use open source stuff, you can even save some money in the process.

      Yes, Micosoft uses some aggressive business tactics. A company pretty much has to if they plan to stay alive in the IT field.

      Consider IBM. They have been known for strong-arming many companies in the past, yet for some reason most people here seem to have a "GO IBM!" sentiment when it comes to their fight against SCO.

      I don't think there's any risk of IBM not destroying SCO over this (one way or another). So now it's *okay* for a company to strong-arm another, as long as they're standing up for Linux, which is decidedly "GOOD". When Microsoft does the same (runs over small companies) standing up for Windows, it makes them "BAD".

      What I think some slashdot readers need to start understanding is that not everything is black-or-white, "GOOD" or "BAD". There are certain grey areas.

      Has Microsoft done some things I don't agree with? Sure. Has microsoft done anything to prevent me from using the software of my choice? No. So I have no grounds to "hate" them.

      Quite frankly, anything Microsoft can do to reduce the amount of unsolicited email I receive is welcome. I would feel the same way if it were IBM or Apple or Intel doing it.

      I hope some of you will change your " can do no good, because they are evil!" attitude. Prejudice is never constructive.

      -AC

    8. Re:Yay for Microsoft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :: applauds ::

      Well put. I wish I had thought of saying it that way years ago.

    9. Re:Yay for Microsoft! by oerlikon · · Score: 1

      It's hard to say, but I agree. The only people with enough money and sufficient economic incentive to stop spam are big business who get tired of their email servers blowing up left and right from overload.

    10. Re:Yay for Microsoft! by notque · · Score: 1

      And, personally, I don't care that I don't see that money. I'd rather not have porn and viagra ads in my inbox all the time.

      I've had my email address for over 5 years. I recieve a spam message every couple weeks.

      It's highlighted by the server as potential spam, and I rarely even think about it as I delete.

      Obviously my concern for the issue just isn't very high.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
  14. How long until SCO gets sued? by MongooseCN · · Score: 1

    They have been spamming the world with their ignorance for a while.

  15. Something Positive by Jonsey · · Score: 1

    It seems Microsoft is doing something positive.

    While not quite a true prescident (IANAL), having the biggest corp. in the world (Larger than all but 7 (I believe) nations) involved has a good chance of getting the ball rolling on anti-spam legislation.

    This is NOT a Very Bad Thing (tm)

    --
    I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
  16. hotmail by xpulsar87x · · Score: 1

    i think it's funny that my the company that runs my hotmail account seems to care about spam.. with their "spam filter" set on the highest level without having to type in email addresses that i allow, spam still accounts for 95% of my email at that address. I have to clean it out every week so I don't go over the limit!

  17. Only result can be... by sahonen · · Score: 0, Funny

    Spammers will just go deeper underground and learn to hide themselves increasingly better, and move to countries with lax attitudes on spam.

    The only solution is to make it unprofitable. I suggest planting whatever program Sen. Hatch plans on using for destroying computers into all the adware on the internet, I'm guessing the people who download that are the same people who actually buy stuff from spam.

    --
    Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    1. Re:Only result can be... by El+Cubano · · Score: 2, Informative

      The only solution is to make it unprofitable. I suggest planting whatever program Sen. Hatch plans on using for destroying computers into all the adware on the internet, I'm guessing the people who download that are the same people who actually buy stuff from spam.

      Ahh.... No. I help lots of my friends unfsck their computers from things like adware and viruses, and I have noticed that the majority of people who end up with adware on their computers (all intelligent college students) end up with it for two reasons 1) they use MSIE and 2) they fail to understand that IE's design makes it so that the simple act of visiting a website will make you subject to viruses, drive-by downloads, adware, and many other goodies that take advantage of IE's "extensible interface."

      This usually results in me educating them on 1) the dangers of clicking "yes" on any dialog box without actually reading it, 2) enabling ActiveX and JScript by default, and 3) the virtues of using a well designed browser. I then remove the adware, install Mozilla, show them how to turn off software downloads and popup windows and they are quite happy.

      I can honestly say that not one single person I have helped out such a predicament would actually buy anything from spam. As a matter of fact, they are usually pretty good at spotting spam, they just don't know how to get rid of it (i.e., filter it before it gets to them).

    2. Re:Only result can be... by sahonen · · Score: 1

      Okay, adware is out. I wonder if there's another easily identifiable niche that tends to buy stuff from spam?

      As a matter of fact, they are usually pretty good at spotting spam

      Now your use of the word "usually" brings up an interesting point. Of course, there are several ways one could interpret that:

      1) They can toss out the obvious spam without reading it based on subject lines, but can get sucked in by deceptive subjects
      2) They can toss out most spam after opening it, but can occasionally think a spam is legit even after reading it
      3) By usually, you meant, I don't want to commit to saying always, but I've never seen them think a spam was legit

      In the case of #3, please ignore the following. I myself, fit #1 but I always kick myself and delete it. #2 is the interesting case, how could someone not know that an unsolicited ad in their email is in any way a legitimate use of their email account? Who would buy useless products from bad advertisements in media which require no active participation?

      Answer: The same people who buy stuff from telemarketers and infomercials of course! So to get rid of spam, the thing to do is to put the Sen. Hatch Computer Nuker in some seemingly useful piece of software, and use telemarketing and infomercials to sell it to our target niche. Spam would probably be more effective, but that's just contributing to the problem.

      A less extreme way would be to have the program just filter out all SMTP, POP3 and IMAP packets, and block hotmail.com and other webmail sites.

      {sigh} One can dream...

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
  18. When Evil fights against Evil by kilimangaro · · Score: 1, Funny

    Take a beer, sit down and enjoy the show !

    --
    "Insanity in individuals is something rare, but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." - Nietzsche
  19. Goodwill towards all by SplendidIsolatn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, I read this and the little Mr. Cynical on my shoulder says, this is all just PR. Yes, they are filing lawsuits, etc...but in the grand scheme of things, this is just advertising.

    Microsoft: "We're on your side"
    Microsoft: "We hate spammers too!"
    Microsoft: "We're fighting for the little guy"

    etc, etc, etc.

    The cost of a few million (drops in their bucket) of court costs might go a long way in falsly convincing some people that Microsoft actually cares about the little guy.

    Just a though.

    --
    sig--we don't need no goddamn sig
    1. Re:Goodwill towards all by mbakaitis · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Knowing Microsoft and their ability to judge the return on any investment, I just can't see this as a credible reason for their action.

      More likely, they are doing it to reduce the amount of spam heading in towards Hotmail and their MSN services. The cost of managing this must be large and it may even be hurting them in the fight for the MSN-AOL user segment.

      In the long term, they may also be doing it as a good deal of spam is sent with their domain as a return address or with Microsoft trademarks in the subject line. As the spammers are trying to sell something, Microsoft may need to do something in order to show that they are protecting their trademarks...but IANAL, so this is speculation...

  20. And across the world... by kiwimate · · Score: 1

    Thousands of Slashdot brains slowly start to implode...

  21. Slashdot Club by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2, Funny

    The first rule of Slashdot Club: never side with Microsoft.

    The second rule of Slashdot Club: never side with Microsoft.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Slashdot Club by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1, Funny

      The second rule of Slashdot Club: never side with Microsoft.
      Oh wait, sorry, I read the first line twice, silly me.
      The second rule of Slashdot Club: no smoking in the hallways, please go outside.

      Third rule of Slashdot Club: no littering, use the bins provided.

      Fourth rule of Slashdot Club......

    2. Re:Slashdot Club by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      especially you :D

  22. NO! by notque · · Score: 1

    The laws are inacted for the END USER

    It does not cost Microsoft $500 dollars per spam message. Deceptibility has no variance in the ammount.

    This is for being deceptive, and goes to the ones being decieved.

    This is not for the Bandwidth Microsoft uses. Therefore they should recieve NOTHING!

    --
    http://use.perl.org
    1. Re:NO! by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      it will if they get one of their lawyers to look through each spam message when building their case. oh, well, $500 per lawyer-minute is a bit cheap really, they should sue for more!

  23. In other news . . . by vegetablespork · · Score: 1
    . . . spam volume in my hotmail.com sockpuppet accounts has decreased precipitously in the last 24 hours. Coincidence? Or are others seeing the same thing.

    Go, Bill!

    --

    Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

  24. Never say Bill never did nothin' for ya. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Enemy of my Enemy is... my Enemy?

  25. MS will do the spamming by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

    They are suing them because spammers are free loaders, wait until M$ kills all the spammers and start spamming hotmail accounts themselves and offers an "opt-out" subscription accounts for people who don't wish to get any ads in their mail box....
    business as usual ..another day ..another billion

  26. Please add Network Solutions by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Please M$ add Network Solutions in your list to sue. Those frickin bastards tell users their whois database is not to be used for commercial spam, and yet they turn around and do the same anyways.

    --

    eTrade SUCKS
    1. Re:Please add Network Solutions by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please M$ add Network Solutions in your list to sue. Those frickin bastards tell users their whois database is not to be used for commercial spam, and yet they turn around and do the same anyways.

      I rarely get junk mail from NSI; I don't consider it spam because I have an actual honest-to-god business relationship with them that involves me paying them money in exchange for their services, I knowingly and willingly gave them my e-mail address, and I believe the opt-out link actually works.

      I don't know whether they've sold their database in the past or not. Probably so. But the spam doesn't come from NSI, it comes from people who used NSI's whois database with or without NSI's permission. Do you really get spam from NSI, or just spam at the e-mail address you used on your domain registration?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    2. Re:Please add Network Solutions by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 1

      I have a few domains registered at Godaddy.com. I've received quite a few "domain renewal notices" from Network Solutions, trying to trick me into paying Netsol and transferring my domain name over.

      --

      eTrade SUCKS
  27. "not quite a true prescident..." by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 0, Funny

    For a second there I thought you were talking about Dubya.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:"not quite a true prescident..." by Jonsey · · Score: 1

      I actually laughed out loud to that.

      Unfortunately, my boss was within earshot, and I have a distinctive laugh... this will make for an interesting meeting no doubt. : p

      --
      I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
  28. Ack! by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hate Microsoft; hate spam.
    Hate Microsoft; hate spam.
    Evil greedy corporation; slimy pollution of the Internet.
    Illegally abusing their monopoly; illegally hijacking servers.
    Overpriced software; lowest mortgage rates ever.
    Bug-ridden products; barnyard porn.
    Embrace and extend; extend your manhood.
    No concept of security; special offers on SystemWorks 2003.
    Never innovating; always innovating.

    I'm siding with Microsoft.

    *sob*

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    1. Re:Ack! by notque · · Score: 1

      (great post)

      I think I am the only person siding with Spam on this one, but don't worry.

      I'm crying too.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
  29. Dilemma. by AmoebafromSweden · · Score: 1

    So, is my enemys enemy my friend?

  30. I'd love to see this trial in person by drgroove · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mainly just to see first hand an accused Spammer being cross-examined by a Microsoft Lawyer, dressed up in that stupid butterfly outfit...

    1. Re:I'd love to see this trial in person by rhkaloge · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can we install a trap door under the witness chair too?

    2. Re:I'd love to see this trial in person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      " Can we install a trap door under the witness chair too?"

      You think like dogbert ;-)

    3. Re:I'd love to see this trial in person by DocStoner · · Score: 1

      Sooo... what your saying is a cockroach dressed in a butterfly suit? I don't think I really wanna see that.

    4. Re:I'd love to see this trial in person by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      Sooo... what your saying is a cockroach dressed in a butterfly suit? I don't think I really wanna see that.

      Ask and ye shall receive. (With apologies to the Tick)

      ;)
      -T

  31. Coverage in The Register by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  32. Woooo! WOOOO! by Schezar · · Score: 1

    As sad as it is that we need such a thing, it's good to have real money (millions and millions) and real lawyers (the kind you can get for.. millions and millions) on our side.

    I'm very liberal. The first ammendment is sacred to me. I believe in free speech to the extreme. But, quite frankly, spammers piss me off. Now, I don't mind the KKK, or any of the other myriad hate-mongering groups speaking their collective minds, because it's their right to do so. I very much -do- mind being bombarded with pe3nis e.n.l.a.r.g.e.m.e.n.t..! bullshit.

    The difference? The KKK preaches its message to... people who want to hear it! If you don't want to listen, they won't/can't force you. Spammers, however, target everybody, the vast majority of whom do NOT want anything to do with them.

    [end_rant]

    I've gotta stop posting before I have my coffee.. Just got spammed on my work account, too, so go figure. (I think I have ADHD too. How'd I get from "Microsoft good" to "spam bad" to "KKK something something"?)

    --
    GeekNights!
    Late Night Radio for Geeks!
  33. Re:Microsoft? Spammers? by PhxBlue · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The hatred against the spammers is stronger 'round here. I've never seen a Slashdot campaign to subscribe Bill Gates to hundreds of magazines and newsletters, after all; and the worst I've seen done to Ballmer is the Monkey-Dance video.

    --
    !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  34. That's Microsoft Business as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Sell email addresses of customers to spammers

    2) Profit

    3) Turn against fore-mentioned spammers

    4) Profit a second time !

    That's just how Microsoft handles "business partnerships", really. Nothing to see, move along.

  35. The cost of spam to MS by brucmack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder what cost spam has on MS itself... Think of all the resources on Hotmail that get taken up with sent and received spam... Surely it would add up?

    Then again, it might not matter to such a large company... but it's MS, there must be some monetary explanation for all this :)

    1. Re:The cost of spam to MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you whackos get the idea that money does not matter to large companies????

    2. Re:The cost of spam to MS by brucmack · · Score: 1

      I meant that it may be insignificant in the big picture... i.e. a small expense compared to their overall operations.

  36. What about MS by Remlik · · Score: 0

    Did they put themselves on notice?

    Just this morning I got 5 emails from hotmail accounts asking if I wanted:
    A) A bigger penis
    B) A new home loan
    C) Free cable descrambler
    D) Viagra
    E) Spam blocking software.

    SHouldn't there be a law that requires web services to stop themselves from being used as spam sources?

    --
    Apple free since 1990!
    1. Re:What about MS by mosschops · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just this morning I got 5 emails from hotmail accounts asking if I wanted:

      Spammers fake the sender's address all the time. If you dug into the mail header details I'm willing to bet they didn't come from Hotmail servers.

      Try typing this in exactly as shown:

      telnet your.smtp.server 25
      HELO somedomain.com
      MAIL FROM:
      RCPT TO:
      DATA
      Subject: junk subject line

      junk body text
      .

      The blank line after the subject and the dot on the line by itself are important.

      Congratulations - you've just sent yourself a forged e-mail. Easy wasn't it? :-)

    2. Re:What about MS by MImeKillEr · · Score: 1

      ...and if you look at the headers, it still shows the IP address of the host used to send the forged email. The originating host (or ISP rather) is still easily determined.

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    3. Re:What about MS by mosschops · · Score: 1

      if you look at the headers, it still shows the IP address of the host used to send the forged email.

      Yeah, most of the time it's easy to pick out, but if they've inserted extra "Received from:" lines that fit the chain, it can get rather messy.

      If I'm feeling lazy I'll just feed it into SpamCop and let their scripts do the detective work. You still get the opportunity to cancel it after viewing the technical details, if you change your mind.

    4. Re:What about MS by firewood · · Score: 1
      ..and if you look at the headers, it still shows the IP address of the host used to send the forged email. The originating host (or ISP rather) is still easily determined.

      unless the email has been forwarded thru an 0wn3d server in China/etc.

    5. Re:What about MS by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      There are bazillions of residential broadband customers in the US running unpatched Windows boxes. No need to hack one in China. Just forward the mail from your hacked box in the US to an open relay in China, and you're set!

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  37. Let them RBL some of the spammers by shri · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My oldest account on Hotmail (about4 or 5 years old) is plagued with SPAM. I keep it because people still use it to send me MSN conversations.

    While Microsoft is suing the spammers, they're not doing much to block them. Are they? Some bayesian filters and RBLing with a bit of context analysis (50K people get the same email in 2 minutes) might just prevent them the agony of having to sue people.

  38. The Sound of One Hand Clapping by Ranger · · Score: 1

    Something that I can finally applaud Microsoft for. Woohoo! Crush those spammers the way you crush or try to crush your competition.

    The ghost of J.P. Morgan: "What is good in life?"

    Bill Gates: "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to here the lamentation of their women!"

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
    1. Re:The Sound of One Hand Clapping by jpmorgan · · Score: 1
      The ghost of J.P. Morgan: "What is good in life?"

      Rumors of my demise have been greatly exagerated.

  39. Re:Microsoft? Spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    who do we root against?

    When your enemies are fighting, you root against both and hope they drive each other into the ground.

  40. its official by asv108 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Microsoft is now bumped down to public enemy #2. We all know who #1 is..

    1. Re:its official by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. When SCO is crushed, MS will get it's ranking back.

    2. Re:its official by rekkanoryo · · Score: 1
      Nope, public enemy number 3. The new list is as follows:
      1. spam
      2. SCO Group
      3. Microsoft
    3. Re:its official by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      public enemy #2. We all know who #1 is.

      George W Bush, right?

  41. Microsoft. My Hero! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um. Not really. But if we give them what they expected they'll be easier to assimilate.

  42. One More TIme... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at the headers... chances are itÂs not coming from hotmail, just using hotmail in the reply-to field. The real from field is problably an IP that doesnÂt map to a host/domain, but if you do a traceroute to the IP itÂll be either an asian address or some clueless userÂs box in the US on a cable modem or DSL link.

    1. Re:One More TIme... by jkrise · · Score: 1

      "the IP itÂll be either an asian address or some clueless userÂs box in the US on a cable modem or DSL link."

      The news item states 15 spammers, 13 in the US and 2 in the UK. Bang goes your theory.

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    2. Re:One More TIme... by Xandar01 · · Score: 1

      >"the IP itÂll be either an asian address or some clueless userÂs box in the US on a cable modem or DSL >link."
      >
      >The news item states 15 spammers, 13 in the US and 2 in the UK. Bang goes your theory.

      The news states where MS is filing its lawsuits. AC is just stating his/her observation of where most spam comes from. Since I rarely bother looking at the headers for spam, I can not say whether or not AC is correct. However I am inclined to accept there is some truth to his statement.

      --
      Life moves pretty fast; if you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. -FB
    3. Re:One More TIme... by DustMagnet · · Score: 2, Informative
      I can decode the headers, but I normally let spamcop do it. The trend changes every few months, but right now most of my spam comes from unsecured cable modems. Over 90% of the websites advertised are under one ISP in China (shaidc.com/online.sh.cn). Shaidc has been the big player for almost a month now.

      Before that it was chinanet.com.net (or some other stupid variation). They stopped about two weeks after Sprint started asking for copies of the spams. Thank you Sprint.

      --
      'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
  43. This is one of the ideas after Balmer's pep talk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Balmer: We must seek out new opportunities.

    Staffer: Hey, let's just sue spammers. That's a great business model!

  44. BEWARE that this is not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...just a ploy to help distract public attention away from the possibility that MS might be the ones behind the SCO lawsuit.

  45. Re:When Evil pretends to fight against Evil by jkrise · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Forget the beer, pack off and watch your purse very carefully.

    It's not so straightforward as you think:

    http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/ 61 13665.htm

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  46. You missed the real benefit of the lawsuit by goldspider · · Score: 1
    "Because I'm sure Microsoft will write a check to each person who was duped by a deceptive internet advertisement."

    That's not the point of lawsuits like this. If Microsoft's action here results in a decrease in spam (and therefore better service), that alone is a huge benefit to their customers.

    Any ISP that tries to reduce spam for its customers should be praised, not just the ones that you perceive as Good(tm).

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:You missed the real benefit of the lawsuit by notque · · Score: 1

      Any ISP that tries to reduce spam for its customers should be praised, not just the ones that you perceive as Good(tm).

      Any ISP that tries to reduce spam via logical, and technilogical ways should be praised. However I do not beileve we should praise Microsoft for suing spammers.

      Why should they benefit from the wrong doings that affect customers? My opinion is that the benefit should be the customers, and not the ISP.

      I didn't miss the benefits of the lawsuit, I see them clearly. The benefits of the law shouldn't go to the companies who just so happen to have the money to sue.

      Why does Microsoft make the money from this!?

      Just institute jail time for spammers, and lock them away. Same benefit, private companies don't profit from things that happen to their customers.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    2. Re:You missed the real benefit of the lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why does Microsoft make the money from this!?
      Because they paid the money to keep the mail servers going? Remember that a lot of Hotmail is free.
  47. Oddly enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find myself rooting for the spammers. IT's a sad, sad day.

  48. What do you mean, save bandwidth? by arth1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    You know, you don't really save bandwidth this way.
    You just shift the data over to other servers, who may or may not be able to handle the load better.

  49. Physician, bite thyself by gosand · · Score: 3, Insightful
    AFAIK, some spammers go to great lengths to keep their identities hidden (hi-jacking other people's computer systems etc) so although the threat of legal action will be a big deterrent there's always going to be spam unless we can come up with a technological solution to stop it.

    Gee, you mean like producing a secure operating system and email applications? How funny would it be if it goes to court and the spammers had to testify how easy it was to hijack Windows systems.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:Physician, bite thyself by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1, Insightful

      how funny woudl it be if it went to court and the spammers explained how easy it is to hijack Linux systems? not funny anymore huh?

      I'm not trolling, remember that most of the email sent comes through unix systems, remember that there are plenty unpatched systems around, and plenty more where the admin either doesn't care or doesn't know he's running an open relay.

    2. Re:Physician, bite thyself by gosand · · Score: 1
      how funny woudl it be if it went to court and the spammers explained how easy it is to hijack Linux systems? not funny anymore huh? I'm not trolling, remember that most of the email sent comes through unix systems, remember that there are plenty unpatched systems around, and plenty more where the admin either doesn't care or doesn't know he's running an open relay.

      Oh, I know all that. And the standards used were not created by MS, and have problems of their own. But what I found funny was that it is MS that is suing these people. It wouldn't be as funny if they said it was easy to hijack Linux systems, because "Linux" isn't the one suing them.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    3. Re:Physician, bite thyself by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      yeah, I know, but it isn't really funny.
      Perhaps if MS had left Hotmail running on its original BSD platform (or ported to Linux).... now that'd be funny given the rabid attacks from the linux zealots out there.

      cheers.

  50. Just because there's a fight... by SpotBug · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Doesn't mean it has to be Good vs. Evil.

    Fights can be Evil vs. Evil, too.

    --
    cygnuhchur
    1. Re:Just because there's a fight... by sogoodsofarsowhat · · Score: 1

      Ah the joys of watching True CHAOTIC EVIL characters :)

      --
      . I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
    2. Re:Just because there's a fight... by 77Punker · · Score: 0

      Just like playing Half-Life! Marines vs. Aliens!

    3. Re:Just because there's a fight... by anethema · · Score: 1

      Yeah i guess we are supposed to root for microsoft, then when they win, hope they promptly die?

      (Can of raid for that giant ugly butterfly)

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
  51. Ok, Whatever by SpamJunkie · · Score: 1

    I have a hotmail account that I didn't give anyone for two weeks. No one, MS and that's it. Didn't send any email. But I recieved spam.

    Basically Microsoft should be suing themselves. They are selling addresses to spammers. There is no doubt.

    1. Re:Ok, Whatever by Utopia · · Score: 3, Informative

      You must have a easily guessable hotmail address.
      My hotmail username has a number & a special character in it. It has never recieved any spam in the 5 years that I have been using it.

    2. Re:Ok, Whatever by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      I so agree. I signed up for an address. THe very next day I was getting stuff.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
    3. Re:Ok, Whatever by Wiseazz · · Score: 1

      I've heard other complaints about hotmail, but I get very little spam compared to most people. Maybe 4 a day? If that? I've had the account for about 5 years now.

      And the spam I do get is admittedly (probably) my fault... I'm a sucker for those free laptop promotions.

      Of course, it's always best to attack the source, and I appreciate M$ efforts to do so (even if it is self-serving, imo).

      --
      My sig sucks.
  52. Nuremberg files solution? by sik+puppy · · Score: 1

    What we need is a site similar to the Nuremberg Files site.

    Complete data on spammers. Name, address, phone numbers, place of business/employment, car make/model/license plate. Photos of spammers, their families, homes, and cars, etc.

    Put a bright spotlight on these roaches and watch em scramble. Thanks to the pro-life/anti-abortion movement, this tactic is perfectly legal.

    The only question is how long it would take spammers to start launching DDOS attacks on it.

    --
    The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
    1. Re:Nuremberg files solution? by Rathian · · Score: 2, Informative
      That Already Exists: That and the news.admin.net-abuse.email and news.admin.net-abuse.sightings groups contains plenty of good information on who these scumbags are and how they operate.

    2. Re:Nuremberg files solution? by frankie · · Score: 1
      Complete data on spammers. Name, address, phone numbers,

      Here's a few:

    3. Re:Nuremberg files solution? by jimand · · Score: 1

      "Thanks to the pro-life/anti-abortion movement, this tactic is perfectly legal."

      perfectly legal but I'm not interested in copying the tactics of those radicals (either pro-life or anti-abortion).

  53. MS is a spammer, kind of by sulli · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Email marketing for less!

    Yes, it's all supposedly "opt-in," but the bcentral spams I have received tell me otherwise.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:MS is a spammer, kind of by tshak · · Score: 1

      BCentral can definitely be used for spam. It's not all opt-in because a customer can buy a list from just about anywhere. However, AFAIK, the TOC state that you must only use opt-in lists. I once worked for a company that emailed previous customers about a new product. Technically not spam because these customers gave us their email address, but it's still junk mail.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  54. Microsoft DOES care by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course Microsoft cares about the little guy. Or rather, about him and the billion other little guys with a few spare bucks in their wallets.
    The little guys impressions are important, as long as they add up and might seriously affect business.

    In this case, Microsoft is the biggest karma whore of them all.

    Regards,
    --
    *Art

  55. About time!! by DecimalThree · · Score: 0

    Maybe now I can start using my myname@hotmail.com account for productive purposes again!

  56. Lovely by ThunderRiver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is good to know that Microsoft is taking a major step forward to combat against Spam. We need more major corporate to do similar thing as Microsoft is doing right now. These corporates have enough power and money to deal with spam in a legal way. Of course, if the spammer chooses to send out junk through an SMTP server that's outside the US territory, there is nothing much we can do. It is sad, but I am glad Microsoft is taking actions! Go Microsoft!

  57. And Korean spam? by Groote+Ka · · Score: 3, Informative
    At least half the spam I get comes from Korean companies in Korea. When will I be freed from that spam? No US or UK law is going to change that, unless all e-mails from those IP addresses are blocked.

    So this ends up in the next global legislation mess: we all agree that we need global legislation, but the big fight is whether is will be US, European or one of the SE Asian.

    And this mess will only be solved when all governments have the same interests.

    1. Re:And Korean spam? by SuperDuG · · Score: 2, Funny
      And this mess will only be solved when all governments have the same interests.

      So are you claiming that there has been no global action because our world leaders are interested in the emails about penis enlargement?

      Or maybe they've taken a ride on the bang bus, and enjoyed it.

      Or maybe they weren't able to get an official pack of patriot cards, and wanted a reproduction.

      Or maybe they like to see every hole filled.

      Or maybe they need an email to tell them that a horney housewife is waiting for them.

      Or maybe they already had $200 added to their online gambling accounts.

      Or maybe they are wanting to see what happens when college girls get drunk.

      OR MAYBE THEY'RE ALL INVOLVED WITH MY FRIEND FROM THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT WHO NEEDS THEIR ACCOUNT TO TRANSFER FUNDS WITH

      --
      Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
  58. this is probably redundant by now but... by joshwa1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why are Microsoft seemingly seeking to stop spam, when there own hotmail service is the most spam prone email service I have ever used. I get about 10 spams into my inbox everyday, (and another 30 into my junk mail folder), even though I have fairly high "so called" spam protection enabled!

    Compare that to my yahoo account, in which I have never ever recieved any spam in the 12months that I've been using it...

    surely Microsoft are doing something wrong somewhere? How is it that Yahoo can make it so that I recieve ZERO spam, and Hotmail can't?

    (also why do I have bad karma?)

    1. Re:this is probably redundant by now but... by phasm42 · · Score: 1

      Duh, because they get so much spam. I'm seeing a lot of brainless posts in response to this article...

      --
      "No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
  59. Re:Microsoft? Spammers? by syle · · Score: 3, Funny

    Root for one well placed hand grenade during the proceedings.

    --

    /syle

  60. Keanu-like 'Whoa!' by dwaggie · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Slashdot is .. actually -not- posting something Anti-Microsoft. I think they sued those spammers just to take a screenshot of this, print it out, and frame it. This is their ultimate achievement.

  61. Re:[Ctrl][Alt][Delete] to login, my ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've obviously never adminned Windows systems if you can't do a one handed [Ctrl][Alt][Del].

    (Hint: look at the right hand side of your keyboard.)

  62. In other news today... by Noryungi · · Score: 5, Funny

    DEATH STAR (AP) 2003/06/18 --

    Darth Vader, Lord of Sith and Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet, has announced today his intention to sue Sauron of Mordor, the official "Dark Lord" of Middle Earth, for violating his Intellectual Property (IP).

    Darth Vader spokesdroid K4VC5 briefly commented to the intergalactic press: "Darth Vader is, most certainly, the original Dark Lord, and we feel that Sauron of Mordor, no matter how creative and evil, has no right to call himself the 'Dark Lord' of Middle Earth". He added that Darth Vader legal team would pursue damages worth "several billions" of Galactic Credits.

    Sauron, Dark Lord of Middle Earth, was unavailable to comment, but well-informed sources close to Mordor report that "his evilness" promised to rain death and destruction on the first legal storm trooper to ever set foot on Middle Earth.

    Darth Vader spokesdroid also confirmed that Lucifer, the star attorney of Mephistopheles, Baal, Satan & Associates Law Firm (LLC) has been retained to defend a case which promises to be one of the toughest legal fight in the history of Evil(tm).

    Lucifer first (and best known) legal battle involved the semitic God YHWH (pronounced: "Yahweh") for the control of the "Garden of Eden" real-estate property. That case was widely considered a draw, and was settled out of court.

    Dr Evil, widely considered as an authority on Evil(tm) only commented: "Bwa ha ha ha ha ha!", and declined to elaborate any further.

    That's all for business news. Film at 11.

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    1. Re:In other news today... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
      Darth Vader...elaborate any further.

      Be sure to set the evil bit on this post.

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    2. Re:In other news today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      YHWH (pronounced: "Yahweh"

      Woah now, that's some bad advice! Only the holiest person in the holiest place on the holiest day can pronounce the ... well, just read for yourself. From http://www.jfed.org/torah/torah_text/5763/101902.h tm:



      To name something is to reveal something about its essence, to exert a kind of control, to assert a comprehension of its nature, its limits and its potentials. Certainly, when the Torah says that Abraham called on God by name, it means to tell us that Abraham enjoyed an intimacy with God that others of his generation did not. It teaches that Abraham knew God with a thoroughness that no one before him could equal.

      And yet, the name that Abraham knew sounds suspiciously like no name at all. The name consists of four Hebrew letters: Y-H-V-H. Lacking vowels (or hard consonants, for that matter) it is virtually impossible to articulate. It sounds like a breath -- air passing in and out of the lungs. Perhaps it tells us that God is the breath of the universe. Grammatically, the name is a mixture of the verb "to be" in three different tenses: Y-H-Y-H (was), H-V-H (is), and E-H-Y-H (will be). The funny combination of all three in one asserts that God transcends time, categorization and limit. God is eternal, and radically different than anyone (anything?) else to which we relate in life.

      When Moses asks God to reveal the divine name, God refuses, asserting that no one can see God's face and live. But God also leaves Moses with the bizarre, "WAS-IS-WILL BE" and tells Moses to transmit that "name" to the Jewish People.

      And the history of that "name" reveals that the Jews understood to treat that awkward word with reverence -- that it was unlike any other name in the world. Its articulation was restricted to the holiest day of the year, Yom Kippur, by the holiest person in biblical Judaism, the Kohen Gadol (High Priest), in the holiest place in the world, the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem.

      Since the destruction of the Temple some two thousand years ago, no observant Jew has pronounced that "name," the ineffable sign of our unique God. To say that God is ultimately unnamable is to assert that God is beyond knowing in any comprehensive, ultimate way -- the distinction between atheist and theist are not as clear as either party would want to claim.

  63. typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sue them all.....
    Wont fix the problem, why dont you do something useful and get behind open source effort to create an email system that is not spammable.

    If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed, he'd be a multi-billionaire.

  64. hum... by guile*fr · · Score: 1

    so putting billg@microsoft.com as email in every forms on the web finally paid off

  65. I never thought I'd say this, but..... by Theovon · · Score: 0

    GO MICROSOFT!!!

  66. Why not make an ammendment to the MS EULA? by viper21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What stops Microsoft from appending some legal agreement in an EULA that specifies that their software can not be used by any individuals for the purpose of proliferating spam email. Define spam. Define a harsh penalty per email sent. Then try to enforce it.

    What might stop this from happening? Why wouldn't we make this a part of the GPL? I think everybody besides spammers hates spam, right?

    -S

    1. Re:Why not make an ammendment to the MS EULA? by illuvata · · Score: 2, Insightful

      MS can do that if they want, but it definatly doesn't belong in the GPL.
      while spam is annoying and all, that is no reason to start limiting the uses of GPL software. also, when would you stop? how about forbiding warez, cause everybody besides warez monkeys hates warez, right?

    2. Re:Why not make an ammendment to the MS EULA? by A+Guy+From+Ottawa · · Score: 1
      What stops Microsoft from appending some legal agreement in an EULA that specifies that their software can...

      What's to stop me from doing anything contradicting what's stated in an EULA?

      Laws?

      --

      using System.Awesome;

    3. Re:Why not make an ammendment to the MS EULA? by iay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What stops Microsoft putting any old rubbish into their EULA? Nothing at all, and you hear about some irritating new MS EULA clause here every few months as a result.

      What stops Microsoft enforcing any old rubbish they put into their EULA? In most places, I'm glad to say, the law does; contract terms that are "unfair" are of no effect. (IANAL, take legal advice before embarking on a course of action, etc.)

      Just because you put something in an EULA and the customer buys your product, doesn't mean they are bound by every term in your EULA. Otherwise, some clever software vendor would already have laid claim to your every word, thought and deed on the basis that you signed up to their on-line service.

      No, wait, that's already happened...

      --
      -- Ian
  67. 9.25" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I followed your advice, and it appears that even there, it requires a hand-span of 9 1/4".

    Just what are you implying, sir?!!!

    1. Re:9.25" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look more closely at your keyboard and you should find an [Alt] key to the right of the spacebar. If not you don't have a 104 key keyboard.

    2. Re:9.25" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a 105 key keyboard, and the right hand alt is "Alt Gr". Yet more MS discimination against European users.

    3. Re:9.25" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget we saved your ass in the war. You europenises should be glad we sell you high-tech products. American corporations überalles.

  68. Re:Microsoft? Spammers? by Jondor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're just not paranoid enough.. Let's see. Spam is only spam when it's send by a company with who you don't have a bussiness relationship. Wasn't that the basic idea behind the american anti-spam laws?
    Well, guess who has a bussiness relationship with 99% of the computerusers?

    They're just killing some competition, making a few bucks and some goodwill. And soon we will see the announcement for "Windows DC" for "Direct Communication with our valued custommers".

    Don't you worry, with a little fantasy MS is still the evil empire and what ever good the do is first and formost good for themself..

    --
    Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
  69. Don't sue the spammer: sue the ADVERTIZER by Theovon · · Score: 1

    You don't necessarily need to sue the spammer. If a commercial product is being advertized, track down the company whose product is being sold and sue THEM. The SPAM wouldn't be sent if they didn't order it.

    1. Re:Don't sue the spammer: sue the ADVERTIZER by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "The SPAM wouldn't be sent if they didn't order it."

      That's not entirely true. Some spammers will send out fake spam, often as a means of retaliation against various anti-spam advocates. For example, here is one such case.

      If it becomes standard practice to sue the advertisers in spam, spammers will just include more random, innocent third-parties in their spamming runs. The result will be enough doubt over guilt that it'd be impossible to figure out who was really responsible.

  70. err... spam from MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've, like, had spam from Microsoft itself - no spoof - a bona fide unsolicited promotional message from MS UK. Note: I would never have requested anything from them. So, are they going to sue themselves?

  71. Keeping on the good side of the AG? by StonyUK · · Score: 1

    Am I just too cynical, or is this just a way for MS to keep friendly with the local Attorney General? Seems like she's the one getting all the press...

  72. Re:[Ctrl][Alt][Delete] to login, my ass! by rwiedower · · Score: 1

    Um...you use the RIGHT sided ctrl and alt keys, not the left ones. These are about four inches apart...if your hands are too small to do that, I fear for you.

  73. MS accusation scene by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

    A jerk jumping up and down the court room.

    You honor, three words.

    I
    ...
    HATE
    ...
    SPAMMERS

    Crowd cheering hysterically......

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  74. A good place for MS to start by rinoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...is to plug the holes that allow for all of the email harvesting within Outlook via viruses, and consequent loads of spam from Windows based virii.

  75. Go... Microsoft...? Uh... dammit... by Shuasha · · Score: 1

    I don't know how to feel right now....

  76. Never thought I'd say it... by Cackmobile · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But Big Up to M$. Using their power for good.

    See i do say nice things about M$ when they deserve it.

    --
    -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  77. THIS IS NOT REASONABLE! by twitter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    M$ attorney is quoted:

    ``We don't think all commercial e-mail should be banned,'' he said. Microsoft favors self regulation by the industry ``to establish standards that can evolve over time,'' he said.

    and you think it's reasonable?

    It's typical duplicity from M$, "I won't let you do what I do, and that's how we make our money and bring you software that does what you wan." Microsoft has been trying all along to criple it's "client" machines so that they are dependent on Microshaft "server" machines and all dependent on M$. It does not do what I want it to and never will.

    Mass mailing is just one more instance of "client" gelding and they have media help for it. A lack of mail agents in M$ software is typical, where the free world has many such as Sendmail and Exim. Their intrests here line up with traditional publishers who wish to keep the playing field uneven. To bring this lack of mailing ability to free software, AOL/MSN and others have sucessfully threatened smaller ISPs to block both inbound and outbound port 25 traffic. Forcing a cable company to give up a competitive advantage like web and mail serving stinks like an anti-trust violation, but that's what a tech told me happend recently when I was forced to use their smtp server as a relay for the first time. The excuse given was to keep cracked M$ boxes from spamming, so M$ created the problem to begin with and the cracking spammers did not lack mail agents, and it's not likely to help. No other smtp server could be used but theirs, enabling Carnivore and censorship, disabling TLS and privacy.

    This is absolutely what the internet is NOT about. The internet is supposed to be a network of peer computers. There's not supposed to be central control or a difference between the ability of one computer and another. Microsoft never liked the internet anyway. They really hate free software that gives people ability that M$ doea not want them to have. Microsoft thinks it owns the internet and can make it into the next broadcast TV. They can, as long people think such things are reasonable.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:THIS IS NOT REASONABLE! by Ethidium · · Score: 4, Insightful

      See also my other reply in this thread, about the nature of corporations.

      I'll be the first to admit that Microsoft has some nasty business practices that need to be stopped. That said, this DOES NOT MEAN that everything Microsoft does is inherently evil, just because they are Microsoft.

      As far as your comments regarding what "the internet is NOT about" and what "the internet is supposed to be," I would remind you that the internet is what it is. Technologies evolve, and the internet is probably the best example. The internet is a big enough place to accomodate peer-to-peer as well as client-server models.

      Being required to use your ISP's SMTP server is not a big deal. SMTP security helps fight spam, and really, one SMTP server is as good as another, as long as the mail gets where it's going.

      As a civil libertarian and a reasonable person, I respect your right to disagree with me. Please do so freely and openly, but understand that grandstanding and declaring that my speech will mean the end of the free world and the eventual domination of Microsoft is not constructive and serves only to weaken your point (good points stand on their own, without such outrageous claims stapled to them.)

      --
      \
    2. Re:THIS IS NOT REASONABLE! by not-folly · · Score: 1

      The problem that the parent poster has is that "Microsoft is EVIL", and therefore cannot do anything good. After all of the "Won't somebody do something about all of this spam?" stories and posts, it must really stink to see M$ doing something about it.

      It doesn't matter to me who does it, and Microsoft has the lawyers and money. More power to them. Spam makes Microsoft look just as bad as it makes AOL or Yahoo look, so they have a vested interest in this as well. I'd like to see Microsoft kill 'em all and let the courts sort 'em out

      --
      Karma: Sucks (Mostly due to the fact that you suck)
    3. Re:THIS IS NOT REASONABLE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AOL/MSN and others have sucessfully threatened smaller ISPs to block both inbound and outbound port 25 traffic. Forcing a cable company to give up a competitive advantage like web and mail serving stinks like an anti-trust violation, but that's what a tech told me happend recently when I was forced to use their smtp server as a relay for the first time. The excuse given was to keep cracked M$ boxes from spamming, so M$ created the problem to begin with and the cracking spammers did not lack mail agents, and it's not likely to help.

      People should not have the right to use ADSL lines to send email. I wish more ISPs would block port 25. Here's a list of spammers we baned at work in the last month (which is why I'm posting as an A/C). See any familiar names?

      buf.adelphia.net , ply.adelphia.net , wre.adelphia.net , atlsfl.adelphia.net , crlsca.adelphia.net , pa.comcast.net , nj.comcast.net , md.comcast.net , mi.comcast.net , tn.comcast.net , in.comcast.net , que.mc.videotron.ca , mtl.mc.videotron.ca , cpe.alex.al.charter.com , roc.mn.charter.com , ftwrth.tx.charter.com , mad.wi.charter.com , mvllo.al.charter.com , woh.rr.com , cfl.rr.com , san.rr.com , hot.rr.com , sc.rr.com , nc.rr.com , maine.rr.com , stny.rr.com , neo.rr.com , hnllhi1.dsl-verizon.net , lsanca2.dsl-verizon.net , evrtwa1.dsl-verizon.net , crtntx1.dsl-verizon.net , sanca1.dsl-verizon.net , lsanca1.dsl-verizon.net , tamqfl1.dsl-verizon.net , res.east.verizon.net , pitt.east.verizon.net , client.attbi.com , atl.client2.attbi.com , ne.client2.attbi.com , mw.client2.attbi.com , se.client2.attbi.com , we.client2.attbi.com , mn.client2.attbi.com , dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net , dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net , dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net , dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net , anhm01.pacbell.net , bc.hsia.telus.net , ab.hsia.telus.net , lsancass.dsl.att.net , nrcrgais.dsl.att.net , blfs.cable.ntl.com , glfd.cable.ntl.com , lutn.cable.ntl.com , mant.cable.ntl.com , pete.broadband.ntl.com , dsl.tulsok.swbell.net , dsl.austtx.swbell.net , dsl.snantx.swbell.net , dsl.hstntx.swbell.net , dsl.crchtx.swbell.net , ded.swbell.net , dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net

    4. Re:THIS IS NOT REASONABLE! by sulli · · Score: 1
      Microsoft has been trying all along to criple it's "client" machines so that they are dependent on Microshaft "server" machines and all dependent on M$. It does not do what I want it to and never will.

      so don't buy microsoft products then. duh.

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    5. Re:THIS IS NOT REASONABLE! by malakai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where do you see that AOL/MSN threatened "smal" ISPs (i guess COX high speed internet is small in your opinion) to block SMTP for a competivie reason?

      What's the competivie reason for the other ports in your link being blocked (Netbios, SQL, SubSeven). Seems if I was microsoft and throwing around my weight I wouldn't want you to block my SQL communication paths nor Netbios.

      Look that fact is your post is major troll. ISPs have been blocking port 25 because spammers have been causing them tremendous pain. Yeah, if 2billion emails from from a COX ip block, I'm thinking AOL or Microsoft is going to bitch at COX. And they SHOULD. COX and any other ISP are the second line of defense against SPAM (The first being the moron who left an open relay, or machine got compromised). But they aren't forcing them for some super evil plan. You make monsters out of gerbils man.

      MSN and Eathlink and 90% of the other ISP block port 25 now. They were not 'forced' too, they did this because it was the only way to stop the spam. And it worked, for those networks, althought Spammers have found other places to go.

      On my mail servers, to get around these blocks, I run SMTP on alternative ports. I have my users configured to use those ports in addition to the basic 25. I'm willing to deal with this 'hassle' as long as it kicks the spammers in the nuts for awhile.

      -malakai

    6. Re:THIS IS NOT REASONABLE! by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      Most ISP's only block outbound port 25. There is no good reason to block inbound.
      If your ISP blocks inbound 25, it's time to look for a better ISP - there are lots.

    7. Re:THIS IS NOT REASONABLE! by yerricde · · Score: 1

      If your ISP blocks inbound 25, it's time to look for a better ISP - there are lots.

      Who provides residential high-speed Internet access to residents of a given town, other than the DSL company and the cable company?

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
    8. Re:THIS IS NOT REASONABLE! by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      That's assuming that Microsoft's actions will actually accomplish anything useful. Microsoft might catch and punish a few. All that will do is force the spammers to be a bit more inventive and make the world safe for Microsoft-approved spam.

    9. Re:THIS IS NOT REASONABLE! by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      I just moved to a small town in Maine, and while Verizon is the local telco and provides DSL, there are also no less that 20 DSL providers that provide service. We also have a competitive telco that is laying fiber to every single business and home in the area. Bigger cities have even more choices.

  78. Above Average? by bengoerz · · Score: 1

    "The lawsuits accuse the defendants collectively of flooding Microsoft's computer systems and its customers with more than 2 billion deceptive unsolicited e-mail messages."

    2,000,000,000 / 15 = 133,333,333

    133 MILLION (and change) spams per spammer on average?

    Alan Ralsky can get out a billion per day.... so exactly how long was Microsoft monitoring the spam? It seems like they went after some "small fries" in the Spam world.

    As they say, "God is in the Details." "God" here being Bill Gates, of course.

  79. MSN could block spam now easily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MSN could block it all now, anything going to more than 5 boxes on their system is flagged as spam, they have enough customers to detect spam easily, why are they not doing that?
    And they could provide a list for other ISP's to use to stop spam also.
    Oh that's right, they would have to charge extra for that, right?

    1. Re:MSN could block spam now easily by MImeKillEr · · Score: 1

      Fine. Then they resort to sending emails to addresses in blocks of four instead of five.

      Connect to MSN.
      Mail spam to four inboxes.
      Disconnect from MSN.
      Connect to MSN.
      Mail spam to four inboxes.
      Disconnect from MSN.
      Connect to MSN.
      Mail spam to four inboxes.
      Disconnect from MSN.

      See? The problem's still not solved.

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
  80. Don't worry, you can still hate M$! by twitter · · Score: 1

    Microsoft wants for itslef what you can't have and is willing to destroy the internet to have it. Spam is worth so much more to Microsoft if no one else can use it. Don't worry, they would never be irresponsible, and make your life any worse than comercial TV, would they? It's not like every letter from my wife's hotmail account has an advert in it or anything.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Don't worry, you can still hate M$! by aziraphale · · Score: 2, Insightful

      friends don't let friends install MS junk, your sig says... surely Microsoft-hating husbands don't let their wives open hotmail accounts? For someone accusing MS of duplicity and double standards, your own standards seem pretty flexible...

      If you don't like MS sticking ads into hotmail messages, don't use them - it's not hard. It's not like you don't have other options for email.

      So damn Microsoft for making your life worse by providing your wife with a free e-mail address. And damn them even more for suing spammers because its in their interests do do so (no company - not the most benevolent corporation in the world - would launch a legal action against spammers out of sheer public spiritedness - for a start, it's kinda hard to get a court to rule in your favour if the person you're suing has done nothing to harm you)

      As to your linked post, well.. if your ISP blocks port 25 traffic, change ISPs. Demand an ISP with an open routing policy. You may have to pay for the privilege, but if enough people do it, market forces will change that. Remember that connecting to the internet through someone else's server is always a privilege, not a fundamental human right, though, and it's up to them to choose what conditions they offer that service under.

      You're moaning about MS forcing you to look at hotmail ads, and lobbying small ISPs to shut their gateways to outbound port 25 traffic, but it seems like pretty easy stuff to get around to me.

  81. They used BSD until... by siskbc · · Score: 1

    ...it died. Netcraft told me so.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  82. Microsoft is bad, mmkay? by twitter · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Microsfot has not forsworn spamming themselves, have they?. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend when both of them do the same thing to you. If you think hard enough, you will remember that Microsoft has been screwing you all along. If you are using their software on a daily basis, you might never feel it. When the limits of their crappy software are brought to free software, it hurts like hell. DHCP on an "always on" internet connection? Ouch. Forbidding, "server machines"? Having to use someone else's SMTP server? Shit!

    Yes, today I really hate Microsoft. They have reached out and screwed me, though I don't run their software and have nothing to do with them. It's personal now.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  83. Re:Microsoft? Spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the worst I've seen done to Ballmer is the Monkey-Dance video.

    No, actually - he did that to himself. :o)

  84. Microsoft is a spammer. by twitter · · Score: 1

    Every piece of mail my wife sends on her hotmail account has an advert in it. Everytime she goes to look at that mail, her screen lights up with dozens of blinking images. Microsoft loves adverts, when they get to send them. They will continue to spam and are willing to destroy the internet to be the only one who can do it.. I hope M$ crushes these jerks and then gets the same treatment. The only cure is to make spamming an offense with a per piece fine. Anything else will make the internet resemble broadcast TV.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Microsoft is a spammer. by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Every piece of mail my wife sends on her hotmail account has an advert in it. Everytime she goes to look at that mail, her screen lights up with dozens of blinking images.

      Ummm.

      And she continues to use Hotmail?

      Why?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  85. Could be worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...SCO could be involved.

  86. Because MS does not want to test EULAs. by fmaxwell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What stops Microsoft from appending some legal agreement in an EULA that specifies that their software can not be used by any individuals for the purpose of proliferating spam email. Define spam. Define a harsh penalty per email sent. Then try to enforce it.

    Microsoft does not want to risk the courts ruling that EULAs are not legal, binding contracts. If Microsoft were to take that case to court, the spammer could challenge the legality of the EULA, showing that it was not signed, that there was no evidence that he read read or understood it, that the click-through agreement allowed him to click on "I accept" without even forcing him to scroll to the end of the document, that he clicked it in .5 seconds, which was inadequate to read the entire document, that he did not know how the scroll bars worked and thought what showed in the window was the complete agreement, that he purchased the computer with the software already installed and he never clicked "I agree" at any point, etc., etc., etc.

    There is a reason that the BSA and software companies take pirates to court for copyright violation rather than for violating the terms of the legally questionable EULAs.

  87. Use your memory please. by twitter · · Score: 1
    The enemy of your enemy is not your friend when both do the same thing to you. The enemy that causes you the most harm is still your greatest threat.

    If you forget what has been done to you, and are ignorant of what is being done to you, then you will always be a victim.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  88. MS claims to own spam patent by Ant2 · · Score: 0, Troll

    The only reason Microsoft is suing the "other" spammers is that they are claiming to have a patent covering unsolicited commercial e-mail and want to charge royalties...er...I mean licensing fees.

  89. Mailing list by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    Now..IANAL....and I'm not just Microsoft bashing...this could be done by ANYBODY who sues a spammer I think.

    Why would I not be the least bit surprised though if someone sued a spammer...subpoenaed (sp?) their address list....and other personally identifiable information they've collected, and just happened to add the information to their database?

    1.Sue spammer
    2.Subpoena their address list
    3.PROFIT!!! from lawsuit
    4.Use new addresses for advertising
    5.PROFIT!!!
    6.Sell your new updated address list
    7.PROFIT!!!!

    And if you think nobody out there would do this kind of thing...just look at people like Ralsky, or Darl McBride...these guys are desperate, ruthless, and lack any shred of ethics.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  90. anti-spam bills by frankie · · Score: 2, Informative
    This could be a good test of the new anti-spam laws.

    Well, except that they haven't been enacted yet, and there's this little thing called Ex Post Facto. Also, the most effective anti-spam bills are unfortunately not the most likely to pass Congress:

    But Tauzin's pro-spam bill will probably get the votes. :-(
  91. Re:MS, Clean up your act first,... by atlas23 · · Score: 1

    I hear you but don't you think they need to get their own spam house in order first? I'm not the only one who feels this way- http://www.silicon.com/news/165/1/4724.html

  92. It's not PR, but it's not for goodwill either. by NYTrojan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The idea that Microsoft is doing this just for PR is silly. The idea that Microsoft is doing this to make people happy is silly too. The fact of the matter is, MS, like any good company, is doing this for money. Spam costs them a LOT. The cost of spam is huge and it is rising. Email systems aren't free, and when 80 percent of what you have going is garbage, you could save a ton of cash if you could cut that out. I dislike MS as much as the next guy, but this is getting out of hand. Some of you think that MS doesn't do ANYTHING unless it is either evil or underhanded. Fact of the matter is they do what they do to make money. Sometimes that's good for us, sometimes it's bad.

  93. The enemy of my enemy by juniorkindergarten · · Score: 1

    is my friend. I cant remember who to credit for this great quote.

    --
    "Every security scheme that is based on secrets eventually fails." - Steve Jobs
  94. Re:Because MS does not want to test EULAs. by Steve+B · · Score: 2, Funny
    the spammer could challenge the legality of the EULA, showing that it was not signed, that there was no evidence that he read or understood it

    If that's the standard, then no document is binding on a spammer unless it's written in orange crayon using Dr. Seuss vocabulary.

    --
    /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  95. Defendant: John Doe, United Kingdom by threeturn · · Score: 1

    Humm - two cases being brought against "John Doe" in the United Kingdom (see here). What are the chances this is a real person? Hope they have better contact information that just "John Doe - United Kingdom".

  96. Re:Because MS does not want to test EULAs. by Sneftel · · Score: 4, Funny

    SECTION 4 - RESTRICTIONS ON USAGE

    You may not use it to send spam!
    You may not use it for a scam!

    --
    The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
  97. Funniest Slashdot Comment ..... Ever by drachenfyre · · Score: 1

    Funniest Slashdot Comment ..... Ever

    -comicbook guy

  98. Spam? What Spam? by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    I use SpamProbe: spamprobe.sourceforge.net

    and peace returned to the land of e-mail...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  99. Oops! It's all my fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate Spam... and I'm not too fond of Microsoft. One day I thought - who has bucketloads of money to throw at getting this spam problem sorted out ? Then it hit me!

    Spammers love usenet! So i've been getting into the habit of changing my name when I post to usenet to {something}@microsoft.com. I've been through all the usual ones - msdn@microsoft.com, piracy@microsoft.com... it seems that the spammers have been harvested these addresses and my cunning plan is working...

    Microsoft gets annoyed and the spammers get taken down. It's a win-win situation!

  100. beowulf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about a beowulf cluster of Microsoft lawsuits, I think it would process seti@home units pretty fast.

    Also, would a beowulf cluster of Microsoft lawsuits be comparable to or faster than a beowulf cluster of SCO lawsuits?

  101. This is a legal method by redwoodtree · · Score: 1

    They're not actually suing "John Doe". When you include "John Doe" in your lawsuit what you're saying is that there are un-named defendants that you hope to discover as you start your investigation.

  102. [waay OT] jocks and geeks by germinatoras · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Depending on your age, it may just be a matter of waiting a little longer. I see exactly that happening all around me. The bullies who gave me such a hard time in middle school have wound up in jail, rehab, or some kind of probation. The jocks have either matured into working adults and gone on to lead fairly successful lives (and still have a hot chick), or have attempted to stay jocks forever and ended up in jobs with the local janitorial services.

    The geeks, on the other hand, have almost all turned out okay. Most of my geek friends are either in some kind of graduate program or working at a tech job with a respectable salary. And as far as "screwing hot chicks" is concerned...that's not what makes you happy. But dating is fun, and when you're young and 've got a good job, it comes fairly easily.

    1. Re:[waay OT] jocks and geeks by notque · · Score: 1

      And as far as "screwing hot chicks" is concerned...that's not what makes you happy.

      I beg to differ.

      I was really kidding, I have noticed everything you have said, and concur. Aside from the fact that I don't drink, and thus have alienated a huge part of the culture at my age (22), I have a much more respectable job than the majority of my friends. All is well.

      And I may be a geek, but screwing hot chicks definately makes me happy.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    2. Re:[waay OT] jocks and geeks by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "Depending on your age, it may just be a matter of waiting a little longer. I see exactly that happening all around me. The bullies who gave me such a hard time in middle school have wound up in jail, rehab, or some kind of probation. The jocks have either matured into working adults and gone on to lead fairly successful lives (and still have a hot chick), or have attempted to stay jocks forever and ended up in jobs with the local janitorial services."

      That is pretty much what I saw as well. The jocks and such were at their worst in grade 7-8. In high school they eventually got the idea that they needed to get their act together to get into university, and everything was reversed. The 'geeks' and folks like me were where it was at at the jocks were playing catch-up.

      The 'bullies' did end up getting arrested for doing drugs or vandalism, although one did get his act together and became a technician for GM.

      It's all a matter of time before before the jocks get it. But will Microsoft ever get it? I don't know.

    3. Re:[waay OT] jocks and geeks by germinatoras · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's just that I know that I won't be screwing hot chicks any time soon, and so I've relinquished the belief that it's what I want. :)

      I'm sorry to hear about the drinking thing, and how it alienates you from your friends. Maybe it's a small consolation, but I think you've definitely made the right choice.

      Congrats on the job - I bet you're the envy of many in your social circle.

    4. Re:[waay OT] jocks and geeks by notque · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's just that I know that I won't be screwing hot chicks any time soon, and so I've relinquished the belief that it's what I want.

      I do the same thing. :)

      I'm sorry to hear about the drinking thing, and how it alienates you from your friends. Maybe it's a small consolation, but I think you've definitely made the right choice.

      It's the right choice for me. It's not about consolation, but thank you. It's a choice I made, and I don't have any problem with it.

      Congrats on the job - I bet you're the envy of many in your social circle.

      No, They envy the money, but not the fact I have to be in to work at 5am.

      Not to boast, but since I just did something very stupid (locked my keys in my car while it was running.. someone almost hit my car, and I got pissed.)

      I drive a camelon honda del sol. Colours are mostly purple and green, but it fades through about 5. They don't care where I work, they just want to drive in my car.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    5. Re:[waay OT] jocks and geeks by notque · · Score: 1

      It's all a matter of time before before the jocks get it. But will Microsoft ever get it? I don't know.

      Good way to bring it all back on topic :)

      I noticed the same thing. Grade 7-8 was the worst, regardless of the HighSchool Football hero stereotype. By HighSchool, there were enough people that it didn't matter if they thought they were cool. We had e-zines, and computer labs.

      And they'd have to ask us how to minimize the screen.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    6. Re:[waay OT] jocks and geeks by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Kudos on choosing not to drink. I'm 38, and have never taked a drink in my life. I realized young that if I were to start drinking, I'd most likely end up in a gutter, face down. I never missed out on high school or college drinking games - I chose other ways of having fun and staying in control. Anyone who thought less of me for not drinking was not worth my time; obviously their world was twisted by the shallow, self-destructive culture of alcohol. I found plenty of friends that respected my decision and didn't try to make me drink to "fit in" to their fragile "I'm cool 'cause I drink" view of their own self-worth.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    7. Re:[waay OT] jocks and geeks by lorcha · · Score: 1

      Ha. Sounds a lot like what I said when I got pulled over last Saturday.

      Honeshtly ossifer... I'm 38, and have never taked a drink in my life. Hey! Whatsh with se handcuffsh?

      --
      "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
  103. In other news... by d3faultus3r · · Score: 1

    AOL also sued spammers, but for a different reason: unfair competition.

    --
    read my blog
    musings on politics and technol
  104. Microsoft discrimates against the differently able by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what part of "I only have one hand" did you not get? What do you suggest I use to press the "[ALT] key on the right of the spacebar" while I am pressing [CTRL] and [DEL] with my hand?!!! You "normally abled" really tick me off with your "Oh, look at me! I have two perfectly good hands!"

  105. The enemy of my enemy by phorm · · Score: 1

    May not be my friend, but can be my ally in a common cause.

    One thing that we can trust is that Microsoft - or any large corp - will do many things to further their own interests. In this case, SPAM is not only a pain in our respective butts, but also those at MS. I'm sure that MS - having a long standing domain name - is probably spammed on a regular basis.

    Evil is a subjective definition. MS is out to profit, and that's not really going to change, but sometimes they can profit in ways that are mutually beneficial.

    I can support the "enemy of my enemy" in one way, without necessarily supporting everything they do. If two bullies pick on me, and one day bully (a) picks on bully (b) - well it's to my benefit to see that (b) gets a good thrashing.

  106. Well, Microsoft has all those lawyers... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    Well, Microsoft has all those lawyers...

    ...who don't have anything to do since Microsoft settled with SCO. Got to do something to keep them all busy and happy.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  107. Try not to see MS as your friend or your enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd suggest that you try to get past all the "evil" things MS did.

    Also get past all the good moves MS did (yup...there are)

    I see MS...or any company for that matter as an entity.

    An entity with attributes. Attributes may be good or bad.

    The MS entity does nothing for nothing, it has a goal, not all goal are approved by other entities but there are still goals to reach.

    And again, in these goals, we may add attributes to classify them as good or evil goals.

    I'm being a little abstract here, let me try to clarify that.

    Sure MS did some very nasty stuff...well ok, not some, a LOT!

    But that doesn't make all of their goals nasty.

    In this instance, filing a suit against spammers, IMO, is a good goal.

    Now. OF COURSE MS has some idea behind the head with that and of course they will also try to get a benefit out of it. Who wouldn't ?? Wouldn't you ?

    But then, as always, we will find a way to get around MS and things will globally remain unchanged. That is, 90% of the end-user will go for MS and the 10% (that's us, the geeks) will use our own means.

    Quite honestly, I don't care what MS intends to gain out of the Anti-Spam war, is it for the PR, is it for a long-term dominance ?

    I...don't....care

    I'm so sick of spammers that if someone can effectively reduce the number of spammers, let it be, we'll deal with the consequences later.

    One problem at a time, as always. Try to do all at once and you fail everywhere.

    I'm no MS evangelist, I despise many of the anti-trust violation they make, I despise their agressive tactics, the way the crush down their opponents instead of making their product better to actually compete.

    But if MS also happens to be the only organization with enough power, enough strengh to scare spammers, let MS put its power for a good use for once.

    Programmer In Training (who was wayyy to lazy to log in)

  108. The Worst Thing About hotmail Spam by rinkjustice · · Score: 1

    ...is the subject headings. They are usually more tasteless than the content they're marketing. The Hotmail spam filter doesn't help much for that either (although I'll admit it's pretty good), because I'll quickly scan the spam folder just to make sure some old buddy from qq/back in the day/ isn't trying to contact me and isn't in my address book (it's happened before).

    I applaud Microsoft for kicking some ass. They are probably as sick of the deceptive and vulgar crap as the rest of us.

    (I wonder if MS is sueing the spammers they can't filter out with the MS8 service they're pimping.)

  109. Microsoft fights spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah right. It must be coincidence that all the people I know that have serious spam problems are also HotMail users.

  110. BBC2 'money programme' on spammers tonight by illtud · · Score: 4, Informative

    The BBC's The Money Programme are doing an edition on junk (postal) mail and spam tonight at 19:30 BST. The Money Programme tends to be fairly influential and usually has high journalistic and production values.

    If you're in the UK, or have access to BBC2 tonight, watch it!

    1. Re:BBC2 'money programme' on spammers tonight by macbeast · · Score: 1

      Uh-huh. There's no such thing as BST (British Standard time, I assume). The name of the timezone is GMT (Greenwich Meridian Time).

      Tsk, HONESTLY.

    2. Re:BBC2 'money programme' on spammers tonight by matthewp · · Score: 1

      Macbeast wrote: Uh-huh. There's no such thing as BST (British Standard time, I assume). The name of the timezone is GMT (Greenwich Meridian Time).

      It's British Summer Time, and it's GMT+1. Rather like daylight saving time in North America.

      For those outside the UK, BBC Two's Newsnight programme also carried a segment tonight about Microsoft's anti-spam crusade. It's available to view online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsnight/ (but only for the day after broadcast). The spam segment was about two thirds of the way through.

  111. Pop-up control in IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I saw an article quoting Microsoft as saying that their "customers" have told them that they want them to fight spam. Haven't those same customers told them that they want to stop popups as well? Why is IE the only browser on the market without a method of preventing popups? This is something Microsoft could fix immediately.

  112. Rather 2-faced don't you think? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Aren't these the same people who won't actually sell your hotmail address but will collect and sell every none hotmail address that you send to or receive mail from?

  113. good way .. by josepha48 · · Score: 1
    .. to spend their money.. last I heard they had 40billion that they need to spend.. I guess stopping spammers is a good way to spend it..

    Also this is a good thing for their ISP / msn department, as it will help them be able to say that the 'butterfly' does help stop spam, by stopping it at its source.

    I'm a UNIX user and I am really glad that MS is doing something that is good for ALL for a change. I just hope they don't try to make an agreement like, you can spam everyone else, BUT msn.

    --

    Only 'flamers' flame!
    Does slashdot hate my posts?

  114. it will be interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to see how microsoft or their users can prove that they did not opt in for any of these messages. I know often times when I download programs and they require an e-mail address, I'll enter a microsoft.com one :)

  115. But can they do it? by Felinoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft is the 800 ton gorilla that's been trying to crush Linux for so long.
    The spam community is just as resolved at surviving any attacks as the Linux community.

    I'm against all forms of commertal e-mail myself not becouse it's all evil but becouse spammers are so evil in the way they twist everything.

    The opt out system was part of e-mail lists everywhere. Someone somehow accadentally opts you in or worse dose so as a prank so you opt out again. Spammers then include the opt out system and ignore it or worse use it to scoop up e-mail addresses.

    Every time lagit commertal e-mail finds some way to make it obveous they are lagit the spammer community copys them and suddenly the spam looks lagit too.

    I've nothing against opt in spam. I've opt in to some spam myself BUT what I've welcomed into my system is flooeded over with junk I've never agreed to.

    Every now and then I get this "Thank you for joining !!!!!" if you don't opt out you get spam from them if you do they sell your e-mail address.

    And there are thousands of other tricks. They just keep comming up with new ways to thwart filters bypass spam blockers and be generally annoying.

    So now Microsoft is taking on spam.....
    Well... ummmmm Go Microsoft.. we hope you'll be successful in a way we know can't happen.
    But hay you'll give spam a big black eye put it in the hospital for a while and drain your FUD department of all resorces.

    Now how can the Linux community help Microsoft on this. I think with a little more effort Spam won't be going to the hospital but the morge...

    Muahahaha

    --
    I don't actually exist.
    1. Re:But can they do it? by yancy · · Score: 1
      commertal
      obveous
      lagit
      copys
      lagit
      flooeded
      comming
      hay
      morge
      My god, man... try a little harder. That post was painful to get through.

      Yancy

      --
      "My license to make fun of everyone comes from knowing I'm the biggest joke of all."
    2. Re:But can they do it? by karmawhoreaide · · Score: 1, Troll

      I would strongly support a moderation option of 'Horrible typing/grammar/spelling -1'. Just burying another post deep in the bowels of slashdot history...

  116. Mod parent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excellent news thanks

  117. Blood! by DustMagnet · · Score: 1

    We root for blood. Blood from both sides. Lots and lots of blood. Huge legal fees, vindictive subpoenas, fines, appeals, injunctions, and contempt of court! I want legal blood spilled!!!!!

    --
    'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
  118. Re:Microsoft? Spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Root for injuries.

  119. Re:Go... Microsoft...? Uh... dammit... by Durandal64 · · Score: 1

    Don't feel so badly. Sometimes it's fun watching a greater evil beat the fuck out of a lesser one.

  120. Re:Microsoft? Spammers? by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

    It's like that Freddy vs. Jason movie that's coming out. Except I think a long, tedious legal proceeding will be a lot more interesting.

    --
    I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
  121. Does spam work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone think spam acutally works?

    How many people actually click on the ads?

    1. Re:Does spam work? by metachimp · · Score: 1
      Think about it. You can send out thousands of emails for practically nothing. If only 1 or 2 people are stupid enough to follow the links and buy something, the spam pays for itself.


      Spam is another form of mass-marketing, which does work. Most mass-marketing, however, is at least minimally targeted. I'm not defending spam, but in interviews with spammers, they claim that it works.

      --
      The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
  122. You mean Freddy vs. Jason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  123. thanks for the null advice. by twitter · · Score: 0
    so don't buy microsoft products then. duh.

    I don't buy them or use them. Duh yourself.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  124. Re:Woooo! WOOOO! by kbs · · Score: 1

    Well, as long as you haven't brought Nazis into this, you're in the clear. ...dang.

    --
    yours,
    kbs
  125. Phaeton Sez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [i]Why? 'Cos the ISP (Internet Spam provider) gets to sue on your behalf (the user) and reap profits? Is spam is so inevitable and untracable, why not allow users to profit from it; if at all they succeed in tracking the source.
    [/i]

    Well, "reaping profits" perhaps isn't as accurate as "restitution for damages". After all, it is the ISP that gets stuck with the immediate bandwidth bills for all this junk mail.

  126. choice and freedom are what this is about. by twitter · · Score: 1
    surely Microsoft-hating husbands don't let their wives open hotmail accounts? For someone accusing MS of duplicity and double standards, your own standards seem pretty flexible...

    Unlike some people, I don't force anyone to use any particular software. My wife uses Debian, Mozilla, Hotmail, and Yahoo by choice. When someone comes and cleans out her credit card, we will pay the %50 payment demanded and she might change her mind, so might the credit card company. I can only imagine how nervous a bank, most of which don't use M$ for anything critical, must be about M$'s promises for My Wallet.

    lobbying small ISPs to shut their gateways to outbound port 25 traffic, but it seems like pretty easy stuff to get around to me.

    The whole reason I'm not useing M$ myself was to avoid the endless list of "get arounds" M$ creates. It makes me angry that they have reached out to crimp my style while I have nothing to do with them.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  127. Re:now I see the bigger picture, thanks. by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

    Did you know that you can switch ISPs? It's a free market.

    Frankly, my guess is that your ISP was lying to you. It's much easier to blame someone else than to pony up to the truth sometimes.

  128. Evil Empire! (Troll Alert) by Alan+Livingston · · Score: 1

    That damn Microsoft. How dare they tread on my right to free spee...


    Gak... Spam is bad! Microsoft is bad! My little karma whoring fingers can't figure out which side of this article to comment on! What a slashdot-dilemma!

  129. Because Bill Gates' penis is already big enough?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So instead of suing spammers via thier email address why not just bust the company that is being advertised, surely if they want you to go to the site/buy the appendage enhancing pill/insert thing here, they need to provide an address, URL or other company information.

    So if I get an email advertising M$ products, I sue Microsoft. Wouldnt that make the companies try a little harder to not allow bulk emailing?

    Who cares if your email addy was spoofed or whatever if its not you being sued anyway.

    Mind you if I then send out a million emails advertising a company I think sucks and it costs THEM cos the company gets sued, not me ... mmm (dear reader, I am writing this letter from a small country in Africa, I am the wife of the recently deposed president...)

  130. Illegal spammers vs. legal ones? by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 1

    Gotta love this quote....

    "Today's lawsuits are exactly the kinds of action we need to put illegal spammers out of business."

    Do we want to allow legal spammers to remain in business?

    --

    Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
    1. Re:Illegal spammers vs. legal ones? by janda · · Score: 1

      A legal spammer (according to my definition) would be one that uses a valid return address, has valid IP addresses, and clearly labels their mail as spam (erm, "advertisements"). Getting rid of them would be trivial if you wanted to.

      --
      Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).
  131. Not the first time that MS fights Spam by dargaud · · Score: 1
    Anyone remember the beta version of Outlook Express 5.0 ? There was a very good spam filter in it. I don't know if it was Bayesian or what, but it assigned weights to keywords and other properties of the message and would give a % probability of it being spam. You'd just have to set an threshold for elimination.

    I used it for the duration of the beta, but then MS got sued by a 'email postcard company' because their junk got stamped as Spam. They removed it completely from the final, which I thought was really sad and set everyone back 4 years with respect to spam.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  132. Completely OT - I hate spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just getting the email address - spammenot@cw.net - out into the wild. Please forgive the RL intrusion.

    If anyone should feel the urge to include the above addy in the body of a usenet postings or what have you, feel free.

  133. Next step.. by Peterus7 · · Score: 1
    Sue those idiots who send all those annoying chain letters and forwards!

    "Oh, it was so sad... I thought everybody liked survays, jokes, chain letters that grant your every wish, and microsoft money makers! The next morning I woke up to find Microsoft stealing my bed!"

  134. Re:Microsoft? Spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm...not funny.

  135. OT: Re:Gorilla Against Spam!! (GAS) by gobbo · · Score: 1
    "Big corporations are a permanent part of our economic system"

    If you see 'permanent' as the next 150 years or so, yeah I guess. But I hope to live long enough to see "our" economic system evolve into OUR economic system, which will spell the end of multi/trans/meta-national corporations, as they evolve into something more human-scale.

    "but the vast majority of them are in it to make money, which they do best by serving the customer's interest."

    They generally make the most money ["best"] by NOT serving the customers' interests, through monopolies, corrupt trading, stratifying product lines, hidden vertical integrations, getting subsidy, circumventing or changing regulations, reducing diversity, speculation, arbitrage and consolidation, manipulating perception and mindshare, and creating dependencies. That's where the big bucks are and always have been: exploitation with a smile. Companies can make moderately good profiits and remain within mainstream ethics, but to make a killing... They need people to roll over and wag tails, loyal puppies all.

    Some examples: Ethyl Corp's nailing the Canadian taxpayer for hundreds of millions because they aren't allowed to poison us, Rockefellers' secret deals for Standard Oil and Chase M's demand that Mexico eliminate the Zapatistas, Monsanto's intentional genetic pollution tactics, Cargill's control over food distribution; Oh Heck just see for yourself.

  136. Never thought I'd see the day... by El · · Score: 1

    when I'd be cheering for both M$ _and_ lawyers!

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  137. MS against spam or just independant spammers? by swb · · Score: 1

    I wonder if MS is against spam, or just against independents making money off of Microsoft's "interactive properties" without Microsoft getting a percentage of the action?

    I can only speculate that MS would be fully in favor of spamming as long as it was part of a "regulated media process" that enabled MS to collect money off of.

    I have a much harder time believing that MS isn't interested in direct email marketing period, just not stuff that they don't make money off of.

    1. Re:MS against spam or just independant spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you're a typical slashdot idiot with blinding anti-ms views. why didn't you just say that to begin with? oh yes, and since you posted so late, why didn't you even bother to RTFA.. then you wouldnt have to speculate.

  138. Re:Microsoft? Spammers? by DiveX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'll bite. The established business relationship idea is teh same as what is written regarding junk faxes and prerecorded solicitations. That law has been around for over a decade (Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991). Just because you had an EBR (establish business relationship) it does not mean that you cannot end it. For example, my local paper made a telemarketing call to me, and since I have an EBR with them, there was no problem. I asked for, and received, a copy of their policy regarding their do-not-call list and stated I was terminating the EBR in terms of future telemarketing. No, I can still be a subscriber, yet any telemarketing calls I get from them in the future will be illegal, and I can subsequently claim statutory damages.

    If they allow you to unsubscribe, or more pointedly terminate the EBR in regards to future marketing, then there isn't a real problem that I would see. Most of the spam is not from reputable companies, it is the fly-by-night ethicless scammers. I have no problem unsubscribing from a EBR and can be comfortable that I won't have to do it again.

    What we need to a powerhorse like MSoft to bring the first fights and have solid case law that we all can use later. This, in tern, allows smaller ISPS to use the case law to their benefit without having to go to the enormous expense to see a case like this through. It will take several cases before spammers back off, but if this goes through, then you will see things start to taper off. The exact thing happened in the junk faxing world..a few cases open up company's eyes in terms of compliance.

    --
    Cave, wreck, and deep diver.
  139. you forgot c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (c) MS has the legal resources to establish their flavor of spam as something different than the gratuitous anti-virus software or loan offers or nigerian scams we are accustomed to.

    Anyone who wants money more than they want zero spam will work towards (c) under the guise of A and B because they know how much money email is worth as a means of advertisment.

    The only way to stop spam..err...unsolicited bulk email. is to create legislation that requires "opt in" schemes for all commercial email.

    What MS wants to do is define spam as only fradulent or misleading advertisments then they will still be able to advertise.

    We all need to stop using the word spam because it as been corrupted as used in legislative circles. Instead call it "unsolicited bulk email"

  140. Hooray! by OtakuHawk · · Score: 1

    Microsoft does something usefull with it's lawyers!!!

  141. what is spam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    microsoft: Spam is any deceptive or fradulent email

    Isnt that nice...someday, after spam is illegal, i'll still be able to read as many advertisments in my email box as i can in a magazine.

    Bite me MS! Spam is any unsolicited bulk email.

    Microsoft and spammers in general wants to corrupt the meaning of the word spam so that it dosent exclude them from advertising. They will do anything to prevent "opt in" legislation because that is the only way to prevent unwanted bulk email.

    We have to stop using the word spam and be very explicit when we complain or eventually we'll end up with a bunch or regulations about who can send you their processed meat

  142. Re:now I see the bigger picture, thanks. by twitter · · Score: 1
    Did you know that you can switch ISPs? It's a free market.

    No, I can't because no it's not. No DSL and only one cable company. Nice, eh? The only option I really have is to build out some kind of wireless network myself. By the time I figure that out, it will be illegal.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  143. My head's gonna explode by SnarfQuest · · Score: 3, Funny

    MicroSoft: BOO!
    Spammers: BOO!
    Suing Spammers: YAY!
    MicroSoft sues Spammers: BOO!--no YAY!--no BOO!--no ka-poW!!

    I'm so confused...

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  144. Apply technology to the problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spamassassin on unix - http://www.spamassassin.org
    SAProxy on windows - http://saproxy.bloomba.com

  145. Comments like these ... by Hal+The+Computer · · Score: 1

    It's comments like these that make my day. There are (+5 Funny) comments and then there are commments that deserve to be modded (+10 Funny) because they are just better (funnier) than all the rest of the comments.

    Slashdot should really look into allowing people to mod posters above +5.

    --

    int main(void){int x=01232;while(malloc(x));return x;}
  146. Monopoly or duopoly by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Did you know that you can switch ISPs? It's a free market.

    In the United States, a town will typically have one or two providers of residential high-speed Internet access: the telephone company and/or the cable TV company. In order to switch providers, a family must switch towns. It costs at least $200,000 to move a family from one town in the United States to another town in the United States. Most working-class families do not have this kind of money.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Monopoly or duopoly by Ethidium · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for all of the telcos, but if you get your DSL from Qwest you can still get your ISP service from any of a number of competing local, regional, and national providers.

      --
      \
  147. Re:Microsoft? Spammers? by nutznboltz · · Score: 1

    Suppose you found that your terminal brain cancer (MS) was attacking your terminal lung cancer (SPAM)?

  148. Re:now I see the bigger picture, thanks. by Tony-A · · Score: 1

    Blocking port 25 upstream was an attempt to block spam. Didn't work very well, did it?
    Microsoft is evil because Bill Gates and friends are paranoid control freaks.
    Pretty accurate, I'd say. I strongly suspect that the reason that Unix (including AT&T, AIX Solaris BSD Linux, etc, soon to exclude SCO) has outlasted its betters is that the control is not only unnecessary, it is actually counterproductive.

  149. Forward thinking by flaflashr · · Score: 1

    Part of what makes Microsoft who they are is their long-term straegic scheming. (Remember that Bill Gates already thinks that he invented and owns the Internet. He won't rest until his lawyers report back that the conquest is complete.) Anyway, for the topic at hand, here's my cut. "If spam is outlawed (by Microsoft's lawsuits), only Microsoft will be able to send spam". Can you imagine how much richer they will become if they corner the entire global market on spam? Call me cynical, but I'll bet that's where they are headed. It may take 5 years, it may take ten, but Uncle Bill will be able to buy the entire world with his riches.

  150. Re:Because MS does not want to test EULAs. by tekunokurato · · Score: 1

    That is the funniest thing I have ever heard. Oh my god...

  151. Re:Microsoft? Spammers? by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

    During the early 60's the army (US) developed a Nuclear Hand Gernade. couldn't get any one to test it. Wonder if there are any around ( for that meeting)?

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  152. Re:small brain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > First off, it's what the tech said happened. I doubt he'd lie to me over something like that, so we should not debate the fact that it happened that way. ...and this is because you believe the tech without hesitation - even though that was only the tech's opinion, and you have no way of verifying the truth of that opinion.

    Are you equally as believing when reading a newspaper or watching TV, or do you simply believe whatever is told to you?..

  153. don't help them screw you. by twitter · · Score: 1
    Being required to use your ISP's SMTP server is not a big deal. SMTP security helps fight spam, and really, one SMTP server is as good as another, as long as the mail gets where it's going.

    is a funny thing to follow: The internet is a big enough place to accomodate peer-to-peer as well as client-server models.

    From my persective, M$N/AOL have forced my connection to the internet into a client-server only model. They did this by demanding my ISP block ports that prevent me from running my own service. No web, ftp, mail or even M$ web share. NetBIOS could not compete so M$ bullied my ISP into killing all normal forms of sharing. M$ does not want it's "clients" to have email, then no one can. This kind of behavior will indeed trun the internet into M$/AOLnet instead of the big free place that fits into your "civil libertarian and reasonable" outlook. Please tell me how to avoid the M$/AOL - Carnivore fate while the last mile is still effectively monopolized. Then tell me how keeping people from doing what they can for themselves beter than what you do for them is anything but evil.

    The new "nasty business practices that need to be stopped", as you put it, is the thing you just defended. Microsoft is not evil because they are Microsoft or even because they have a monopoly. Microsoft is evil because Bill Gates and friends are paranoid control freaks. They have a monopoly because they have destroyed technically superior competitors by screwing vendors in the same way they are now screwing ISPs. Blocking services that other platforms do better than you is more of the same anti-competitive practice we all hate.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  154. Microsoft sues spammers ... but .... by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    So Microsoft is sueing spammers. Interesting that they verify the legitimacy of lawsuits against spammers. Now where do I go to sue Microsoft, as the bastards have spammed me over and over again.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.