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.

14 of 392 comments (clear)

  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 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
    2. 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.

      --
      \
    3. 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.

      --
      \
  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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 :)

  5. 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!

  6. 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
  7. 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!

  8. 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

  9. 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.)

      --
      \
  10. 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.